Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 4

Consumer Direct Marketing
The CEO of Melaleuca Inc. section refers to the company using "Consumer Direct Marketing." I move that this term replace "multi-level marketing" in the lead section. If I'm understanding this correctly, then "multi-level marketing" only refers to Oil of Melaleuca, which is no longer a company. Thoughts? HtownCat (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please review the many previous discussions of this issue. If we must discuss it again, I suspect some of us will simply copy and paste our posts from those previous discussions.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This issue has been discussed ad nauseum and settled long ago. These continued attempts to re-litigate previously settled issues is maddeningly counterproductive. It looks as though a couple of editors here have no real interest in achieving stability but rather are engaged in a seemingly never-ending campaign to POV push and whitewash the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support HtownCat's suggestion. I call everybody's attention to the fact that this article was stabilized for two months, without referring to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing organization, a term that Frank VanderSloot himself (the subject of this article) vigorously denies. The stable version was instituted here. and was reverted here by Rhode Island Red, who had been absent from the discussion for that length of time. The two-month-stable version was reinstated by User:Collect [here, with the Edit Summary stating succinctly, "I suggest you read the discussions which led to one versionbeuing stable here." So you see, this issue was never really "settled," as alleged above. [[User:GeorgeLouis|GeorgeLouis]] (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was abundantly clear that you endorse the idea of using this nonsensical terms instead of MLM, but it was soundly defeated every time you went forum shopping, hoping for support, on the DR boards. If you try to re-litigate this again, you'll just be referred back to those discussions. Move on now and be cooperative. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red: I call to your attention WP:Civility and would appreciate an apology for your peremptory remark, or at least an explanation for such language. In my view, "Move on now and be cooperative" is really counterproductive and makes all editors wince. It made me wince, and I am fairly well inured to such a gibe ("an insulting or mocking remark; a taunt"). GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Images?
Does anyone know of an images of VanderSloot that we can use for the article? Would be a good addition. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow Show as a Reliable Source and possible Copyright Violation
Your attention is called to a discussion of the above subject at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheese factory
This article should present all aspects of the subject, the good as well as the bad. Therefore, I added some information about his purchase of the cheese factory — why he did it, the results thereof, how much it cost him, the details of his transaction, one quotation which told why he eventually sold it, etc., all as delineated in a Reliable Source. These additions were reverted by User:Rhode Island Red with the Edit Summary "rv -- a partisan puff piece published 6 yeas after the fact quoting 1 farmer on insider business details is insufficient; none of the other business news sources mention these details - just stick to basic facts " Click here for the diff. The source, here, is a reputable agricultural website, and the story included information about one of the controversies in which VanderSloot had been engaged. Despite what Rhode Island Red noted, it also included a direct quote from VS. I am adding an "Undue Weight" tag to that section and am inviting comment here as to which version should be used. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, the current version is very conservative and mainstream in what it describes about the factory and VandeSloots involvement; therefore, it's inappropriate to present this as an issue of undue weight, and the tag was unnecessary. The details you wanted to add, which are fluff essentially, are pulled from an interview with a lone farmer (clearly not a reliable or compelling source for insider financial transaction details) and presented in a politically-charged puff-piece from a trade rag written 6 years after Vandersloot sold his interest in the company. It's not confirmed by any other sources and it seems like a vanity piece whose sole purpose was to negate VandeSloot's anti-gay reputation and whitewash his political campaign donations -- so much so that I would have thought it was an ad paid for by VanderSloot himself. You initially included this in the philanthropy section of the article, and it seems that you are still intent on spinning it this way. It's a business transaction, so stick to the basic non-contentious facts. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

- The following is the version I posted 00:12, 6 October 2012 in full conformance with IMPROVE:

"In 1994, VanderSloot was approached by Firth, Idaho, dairy farmer Gaylen Clayson with a plea to invest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho, after Kraft Foods had announced a decision to close it. In response, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the plant, which closed anyway within six months, after an investment company assumed control. Dairymen crowded into a local meeting hall afterward to make another plea to VanderSloot, who thereupon paid off a $2 million debt owed to the dairymen, staffed the plant with his own personnel and supplemented the milking herd with two thousand head of cows. He later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties. 'My business is Melaleuca and that's what I need to pay attention to,' he said. In 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods."

The following was the reversion that Rhode Island Red made 15:35, 6 October 2012 in violation of Revert only when necessary:

In 1994, VanderSloot bought a $1 million interest in the Snake River Cheese factory in Blackfoot, Idaho after Kraft Foods shuttered the factory. Vandersloot paid off a $2 million debt owed to the area's dairymen, and later brought in Beatrice Cheese, a subsidiary of ConAgra, to run the factory. In 1999, the company netted $278 million dollars in sales. In 2000, VanderSloot sold all of his interest in the company to Suprema Specialties, and in 2006, the factory, which by then had been renamed as the Blackfoot Cheese Company, was sold to Sartori Foods.

Therefore, I am again adding the new and improved information. The shorter version is not complete and does not give the full story as reported in the Source. See the very first paragraph above for more. Please comment below as to which version should be included in Wikipedia, or whatever else you have to say about improvements to this section. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC) --
 * The issues with this change still stand. The meat of the issue is that the revised version makes a very bold claim (about VanderSloot paying $2 million to some farmers) that's attributed in the original source to some farmer of no apparent repute, and the detail is not backed up by any of the other sources that mentioned VanderSloot in connection with the cheese factory. Seems contentious, not to mention the issues with the source (an oddly political puff piece published this year, during campaign season, 6 years after VanderSloot sold the company). Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the Post Register shouldn't be considered a Reliable Source, so I have restored the version with the additional details. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So your approach is to completely ignore the discussion for more than 2 weeks and then just suddenly edit war instead? Your change was just undone. Your justification is blatantly misleading -- the edit had nothing to do with the Post-Register article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just above there was a note stating "The meat of the issue is that the revised version makes a very bold claim (about VanderSloot paying $2 million to some farmers) that's attributed in the original source to some farmer of no apparent repute. . . . Seems contentious, not to mention the issues with the source. That's why I thought the problem lay with the sources. Anyway, it wouldn't hurt to flesh out this section just as the original Source did—with some explanation as to what happened, and when, and why. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All the issues raised above still stand. You haven't addressed any of them but just went ahead and started edit warring again. This has to stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

HI, I'd like to understand both your positions and offer a non-binding 3rd opinion. I shall recuse myself, if either of you have objections to me. If not, can we "take this slow" and both of you list your "major grounds" in not more than 10 lines each. RobertRosen (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed, your debate. I find that User:Rhode Island Red's version is quite "encyclopedic" and should stand. Anything which has to be added to it must be backed by WP:RS sources and be WP:NPOV. I am here to assist both of you further, and especially GeorgeLouis RobertRosen (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't think your source is a reliable one. It starts with the phrase Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' invested in plant. A classic ad-homimem tactic RobertRosen (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, RobertRosen. We could use your help in cleaning up this Section, and I, for one, appreciate your coming in here. But I think you are mistaken in your statement about the Reliability of the Capital Press, and I would like to point out that the headline above the story by staff writer John O'Connell sets off the words 'Bitter foe of the gay rights movement' in single quotes—which means it is somebody else's opinion—in this case, President Obama's Truth Team—and not that of the Capital Press. Could you explain a bit more about what makes you think that the Capital Press is not Reliable? Yours in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi George, Firstly, you have to "trust" that I am neutral. I'm halfway around the globe from where you are, so I have no idea of what you blokes are fighting over. "RIR"'s approach is actually very similar to mine. He wants a clean uncluttered encyclopedia based on verifiable "fact". A "fact" is something which is either self-evident or widely accepted. You my friend, are trying to insert a "human interest" angle, with the "who, why, how" of what happened 6 years ago. This could be interpreted as "Original Research" and "POV pushing" and all those other Wiki Rules we all have at our fingertips. As of now you have only "The" source (an agro-industry website). Find some more, in any case you are a far more prolific editor at Wiipedia than I am anyway, so you probably know the ropes. I, OTH am a Wikipedia reader and I only want my Wikipedia to be accurate, factual and verifiable. Let some other editors get involved here and please don't edit war. RobertRosen (talk) 11:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur with your assessment Robert and have nothing else to add for the time being. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK. If neither of you have anything else to say on this for another 12 hours, I'll close this tag down at "3O", and you can stick with RIR's version and take it from there. RobertRosen (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks for taking the time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hold on a bit, please. I am not sure what you mean about "an agro-industry website." In my version I believe there are four references to the Post-Register and one to Capital Press, which is a legitimate news-gathering organization owned by the East Oregonian Publishing Co. Where is this "agro-industry website" of which you speak? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's pretty flippin' obvious which source he's referring to: the Capital Press article on which you based all of your contentious additions; the one that bears the banner headline "Capital Press -- The West's Ag Website...Your Source for AgriNews/Agribusiness Marketplace" -- the same article I criticized from the onset of this discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe there is a time difference between the US and the UK, so I would really rather write when RobertRosen is ready to respond, right? GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I answered your question and the answer was self-evident from the beginning. It's obvious which Agri-industry website he was referring to; there was only one. You've raised no salient points so it's time to move on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I concede we can use the existing paragraph to build upon, so I just beefed it up (sorry: bad pun!) with background as to the reason that VDS bought into the factory and what he did to improve its operation. I agree with Red that we can "move on." GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What you did was completely ignore the consensus that was just established and you went ahead and inserted the contentious material again anyway. This is getting to be a very disruptive pattern. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not see any consensus. IWhere is it? I see a Third Party Opinion that you agree with. That is not a consensus.GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The situation is pretty straightforward. Third party input was sought and received; that third-party stated “OK. If neither of you have anything else to say on this for another 12 hours, I'll close this tag down at "3O", and you can stick with RIR's version and take it from there.” The only comment you made subsequent to that was to ask the very odd question “where is this ‘agro-industry website’ of which you speak”, when in fact it was obvious which site he was referring to, and I clarified this non-issue for you.


 * So basically, you waited Robert out, ignored his input, and then inserted whatever you felt like back into the section. That’s not how the process is supposed to work and persisting in this sort of tendentious/disruptive editing is detrimental to the project, so please, respect the input you received and follow procedure. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Third-party advice was sought because there have been only two editors involved in this dispute. It was given and received. Unfortunately, neiher RobertRosen nor Rhode Island Red seems to be aware of what a trade publication is. Based upon that non-understanding, while I salute them both, their opinions lack substance, and of course I can't accept them. WP:Third opinions are not binding; that understanding is part the "procedure" which I am following. I now directly ask Rhode Island Red: Since there is no consensus, what do you suggest the next step should be? How about a WP:Request for comment? I'll leave it to you to choose the message board. But, please, don't just revert my additions to the paragraph because WP:Idontlikeit. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My perception is that you continually ignore community input to the point where it is WP:DE. You can try to get a second third opinion, but that won't be binding either, so DR would be my choice. Any time you're ready. Rhode Island Red (talk)
 * I choose WP:RSN as the place to go. OK? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RS Notice Board
I asked the RS Notice Board if Capital Press is a Reliable Source for this article. See this posting. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I just left yet another detailed comment on this article. Among the many other issues issues raised against the text proposed based on this source, the publisher whitewashed the article, removing key portion of politically-charged text subsequent to our highlighting them here. This alone is a sufficiently strong argument against the reliability of the source, and it raises potential issues of offsite campaigning. Additional comments on the matter can be left on RSN for now. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish to charge any Wikipedia editor with any impropriety - AN/I is that-a-way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Another straw man? I didn't charge any WP editors with "any impropriety", and I already know the mechanism for reporting infractions. I'm saying that the source was whitewashed and it does not meet WP:RS in the context for which it was proposed. If you have a comment about the content or the source, then I suggest you join in on the RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove four citations
In accordance with a suggestion by User:Rhode Island Red, here "(Undid revision 522595590 by GeorgeLouis (talk)--Please stop removing sources. If you have issues, raise them on the Talk page)," I note that there are four sources that do not refer to the issues mentioned in the paragraph to which they are attached. I believe these Sources should be removed as violative of wp:Sources, and I note that, according to that Policy, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." There are other sources, good ones, which I left in, that support the statements in the paragraph. Any comments? GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources you removed *do* refer to the issues mentioned in the paragraph. The fact that you think they don't is, um, confusing.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, I respect your opinion, but really, I checked the sources on two different occasions, and those that I removed say nothing about VanderSloot and Melaleuca being financial supporters of Concerned Citizens for Family Values, an organization that ran ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann. You know that I am perfectly willing to admit any mistakes I have made, but in this case I have not made any. (Or, if I have, just find the statements within those four citations and let me know what they are, and I will grovel.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, these continued cagey attempts to delete the references are disruptive. The sources all mention that VanderSloot was a financial supporter of CCFV; VanderSloot was the only financial supporter of CCFV. Your continued deletion of the sources is disruptive. If you have a suggestion to make, make it here, but please stop the edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Red, you eyes are sharper than mine if you can see something in those four Citations that I can't see. For the benefit of all the editors, can you pull up those references and paste them here? Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red actually did find the source for one of the citations I had missed. It was on Screen 2 of the cited source, which I didn't check because I didn't know that there was a Screen 2. Apologies, Red. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove two citations and move one of them
For the third time, I checked the four citations in question, referring to the definition of the Concerned Citizens for Family Values as "an organization that ran ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann." This is what I found: (1) The Berman-Forbes citation makes no reference to Concerned Citizens for Family Values, nor to the Silak or Eismann campaigns, thus I deleted it. (2) The Greenwald-Salon piece stated that ML and VS were "large donors" to CCFV (so it is a good source for the phrase just above) but did not mention Silak or Eismann, so I deleted it as a source for this particular phrase. (3) The Murphy piece says that CCFV was one of VS's "favorite causes," so that one might be good for the phrase just above, but not for this one, so I moved it to point to a more congenial part of the article. (4) The Triilhaase-Lewiston Morning Tribune piece mentions CCFV, Silak and Eismann in a general sense, so I can stretch a point and accept that one. (5) The Jim Fisher-LMT source mentions Silak but not Eismann and says that the advertising in question was financed by the CCFV, so, again stretching the point, I suppose that one can also be used as a source. Note: There may be more problems with sources in this Subsection, so I am not saying this is my Last Word on the matter. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that the Forbes article "makes no reference to Concerned Citizens for Family Values" is glaringly false. You previously made a similar false assertion about this text as a justification for deletion. Are you even reading the articles before you hit the delete button? Nomo already reverted you once on this, so I think it would be best to heed his suggestion: "if you have specific concerns then propose a revision that doesn't involve wholesale deletion."
 * RIR, I point you to the policy: Assume good faith, and I hope for your sake and the sake of the article that you will follow it. Yes, I have read the articles (three times, very carefully), and I have bent over backwards to accept some vague relation between the citation and the text, but in these two citations (Berman-Forbes and Greenwald-Salon) there simply is no connection at all to the phrase in question. Since this is a BLP, unfounded or poor citations simply have to come out and stay out. I am sure you would agree with that. The other citations for this phrase are enough to back it up. I am quite capable of making a mistake and would accept your actually letting us all know what the two sources in question say about the definition of the Concerned Citizens for Family Values as "an organization that ran ads targeting incumbent Idaho Supreme Court Justice Cathy Silak during her 2000 re-election campaign against challenger Daniel T. Eismann." GeorgeLouis (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * GL, you say above that the Berman/Forbes piece does not refer to Concerned Citizens for Family Values. How are we to interpret your statement in light of the following passage in that source: "One of his [VanderSloot's] favorite causes is Concerned Citizens for Family Values, which in 2002 paid for ads..."??  Now, since the article continues to cite that source as support for the assertion re VS and CCFV, I don't see a need to revert your most recent edit.  But I do wish you would stop wasting our time with off-the-wall posts here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:55, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I made a couple of minor attribution tweaks that should hopefully put the matter to rest. Proposing a text revision like this in the first place would have been the appropriate thing to do instead of simply deleting the sources. It's easy enough to do and it makes life much simpler for everyone. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nomo, you are to "interpret" my statement in referring to the citation, which goes to only the first page of the article, when it should have pointed to the second page where, indeed, you so thoughtfully pointed out that the quotation does indeed reside there. Thank you for actually taking the time to inform me. As for the not-so-sly rumination about "wasting our time" and "off-the-wall posts," I refer you also to the policy: Assume good faith. Your remark was anything but collegial, and I invite you to apologize to me for your slam. Thank you in advance for that. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please just stick to the content issues. Inviting apologies over perceived slights is really counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Red, this is the place to talk to you about your User Conduct, as you made so clear when you told me to stay away from your User Page, so I will say right now that your use of the words "perceived slights" and "counterproductive" is really offensive to me, as they would be to most people, and I again ask you to review WP:Civility, which states "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid directing offensive language at other users. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." As for Nomo, yes, you are correct, I should have approached Nomo on his or her User Page, so I will do so from now on. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking offense to "counterproductive" seems rather odd to say the least. The talk page is not the place to focus on user conduct issues, and my conduct wasn't the issue -- it's about your exchange with Nomo; and I'm just saying, get over it and move on instead of trying to tickle out apologies. Expecting someone to know how to get from page 1 of an article to page 2 is not overly demanding IMO. Can we keep the focus on content now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

FDA letter . ..
Hello, all: The large amount of space given to one FDA letter during VanderSloot's rather long life seems to be a good instance of contradicting WP:Undue. Therefore, I am making a subhead for that phase of the article and marking it for attention. I really don't think it should be used at all: It is equivalent to reporting on a speeding ticket that one of his truckdrivers might have received back in 1997. Please comment on whether this section should or should not be deleted.

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements."

Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it is unduly weighted. It has been mentioned by secondary sources and is described succinctly in the article and only in as much detail as is necessary to convey the gist. Suggesting that FDA warnings are analogous to a speeding ticket is nothing more than a personal opinion (c.f. WP:OR) and it demonstrates a lack of understating of their significance. It's especially relevant given that VS had a serious run-in with the FDA for similar issues while running Oil of Melaleuca. If anything, you have given it even more weight by offsetting it into a separate section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove the entire item. (1) Please read the original posting at the top of this section. (2) The reason the item now has a subheader is so that a tag could be placed on just one particular section. The tag reads: "An editor has expressed a concern that this section lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message. (Emphasis supplied.) (3) There is only one Source given for this item, in a trade website. (The other Source is the letter itself, which is not good enough in Wikipedia's eyes to use as a Source alone.) This factoid about Melaleuca was never the object of scrutiny in any other Reliable Source, nor reported on elsewhere. It is therefore de minimis. It is, given the thousands of products made by Melaleuca, just not worth trifling about. Nor, given the fact that this article is about a Living Person and not a company, does it warrant even a mention in the biography of this man. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FDA's involvement with Oil of Melaleuca is a big deal. The 1997 letter is a different matter.  The letter itself states that it is not a reflection of Melaleuca in general, which is how it is being used in this article.  To put it in the proper context, the warning letter would require either a very long explanation or original research, neither of which is appropriate.  The FDA also did not say that the claims were necessarily untrue, since that's beyond its statutory purview. Andrewman327 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't require a long explanation at all. It has a short explanation now and it serves the purpose fine. All the key details are there, the primary and secondary source are linked, and no additional context is necessary. FDA warnings are pretty straightforward and unambiguous. They don't deal with whether or not claims are true; simply whether or not they are legal, and in this case the claims were not legal. DSHEA provides blanket rules specifying what sellers of dietary supplements can and cannot say about their products; when companies break the rules, they get a warning and then fines/sanctioned if they refuse to comply with the order. The FDA warning is relevant and noteworthy enough on its own, but even more so given that VS's previous company had an identical run in with the FDA and received the same type of warning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not up to Wikipedia to assert what you seem to wish us to assert. All supplement companies get FDA letters.  A "warning" is of de minimis importance in a BLP.   If you found a fine being paid, that would warrant some WEIGHT, the warning, by itself, is heavily overweighted at this point. Collect (talk) 22:40, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * FDA has a 21 page manual explaining what warning letters are and I stand by what I said about it being too wonky to be able to describe without either making it sound worse than it was or giving the section undue weight. As far as I can tell, FDA has never taken an administrative action against the company. Even the letter they sent 15 years ago did not apply to the company writ large. Andrewman327 (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

It was stated above that the letter "has been mentioned by secondary sources." I think just one secondary source. Is there a consensus to remove the section, or should we seek more input? GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that it should be removed. Andrewman327 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement as well. The letter is just talking about wording on a product label. Doesn't seem notable.HtownCat (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I am removing that section according to what seems like consensus. If there are other editors who want to keep it, then I hope they will weigh in here for a possible new consensus. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:50, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't buy any consensus based on a voting block exclusively from WP Project Conservatism, and especially not a consensus based on simple "me too" comments and WP:OR. This is a chronic problem that needs to be addressed with the admins if it continues. FDA warning letters are indeed significant and highly notable. Your assertion to the contrary is WP:OR. The warning letter IS an administrative action. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the POV issue, I suggest that we take disputes to DR in the future. It's important that we get impartial input from a variety of editors on content discussions. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are quite alone - see WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion has been opened at Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. This is the first step in the WP:Dispute resolution process. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The paragraph has been removed in accordance with the resolution made at the above Notice Board. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The section that replaced the FDA letter section needs attention. Two of the provided sources quote other cited sources without adding any new information and should be removed. It appears that back in the nineties some of the company's distributors oversold the program. Other than that, the only specific information I found is the FDA letter, which has been talked to death already with the consensus that it is not notable. Does anyone know of anything specific that has happened in this decade or the past decade? If nothing else, this section should be more focused on specific things that meet BLP standards and do not require Synthesis. Andrewman327 (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that Section was replaced by a single paragraph, which I tried to remove as contrary to a consensus to leave it out, but that removal was itself Reverted. And then a freeze was put on any editing for a week. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=next&oldid=519505504. The new paragraph should really be simply removed once the freeze has thawed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I’ve reverted the recent changes on the actions by the Michigan/Idaho State attorneys and FDA. as they are inconsistent with what the sources wrote. First, the sources don’t refer to date ranges, so the addition of “from 1991 to 1997” qualifies as WP:OR. Secondly, the weasel word “alleged” was added twice; none of the sources referred to “alleged” so this to is WP:OR (see WP:ALLEGED. Third, changes were made to the FDA section so that it specifically referred to the 1997 FDA warning letter, but 3 of the sources merely say that the company was targeted by the FDA; they didn't refer to dates and they didn't specifically mention the 1997 FDA warning letter, so that too is WP:OR with a bit of WP:SYNTH. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've removed the sentence about the FDA letter according to the DRN discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_51#Frank_L._VanderSloot. HtownCat (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Undue Weight on Melaleuca Details
Noticed that the section on Melaleuca has been expanded considerably (see original versus new version), but the newly added detail includes non-essential fluff that seems inappropriate for a BLP (e.g., the blurb about the Idaho Psychological Association). Remember that the article is about VanderSloot, not Melaleuca, so the entry should be limited to the most critical details as summarized by reliable secondary sources who have written about VanderSloot. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reasonable point. But there is serious disagreement as to what the "most critical details" are.  (And not just by Collect and GeorgeLouis.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It would be nice if agreement could be reached as to what is most pertinent. I think that relying mainly on sources that have written extensive biographical/bacground information about VanderSloot and included details about Melaleuca in that context would be a reasonable approach to take. Mention of the Idaho Psyc Assn seems especially fluffy. I also think that the newly added subtitles in that section were rather arbitrary and don't function well. For example, the section that deals with the early roots of the business (Inception) includes details about patents in 2004 and the company's current product offerings, which have nothing to do with the company's early roots. Similarly, the discussion of the Idaho/Michigan AG pyramid scheme investigations pertains to the business model but is included in the marketing section. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am very happy to make the changes suggested by RIR and hope to continue such content cooperation in the future. Go here for the diff. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't suggest any specific changes; what I suggested was that we reach a prior agreement here on the Talk page. The changes you made do not negate the problems and in fact introduce new ones. The section "Inception" no has only one line in it, so it doesn't warrant a separate section. Secondly, a new section was created called "Patents" which has very little if any direct connection to VanderSloot and is given WP:UNDUE. Lastly, the newly created section called "Consumer Direct Marketing" gives undue weight to a term that has no real meaning -- it's a marketing term used by Melaleuca and by giving it undue weight, it obscures the fact that the company's business model is multi-level marketing. We have discussed this terminology issue at length already and the problems were clearly spelled out. It seems like you are simply ignoring those discussions, but in case you simply forgot or need a refresher, let me know and I will be glad to provide the links for you. So let's go back to the drawing board and propose changes here with the intent of achieving some kind of consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * For now, until the matter gets resolved, I've removed the arbitrary/confusing subheads pending further discussion as to what would be appropriate. The subhead you created called "Government Investigations" might be appropriate for inclusion but then again doing so might also give undue weight -- that's something we should consider further. Let's here some proposals. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the awards that you removed was given to VanderSloot by the Idaho first lady. The way I wrote it didn't mention any connection to VanderSloot, though, so I'll rewrite it. Andrew (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Which edit are you referring to Andrewman? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. Well, I tried. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Achieving consensus means that the content actually has to be discussed and the issues have to be worked out. You're free to punt if you so choose. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In the discussion above, it was said by Rhode Island Red that: "the section that deals with the early roots of the business (Inception) includes details about patents in 2004 and the company's current product offerings, which have nothing to do with the company's early roots. Similarly, the discussion of the Idaho/Michigan AG pyramid scheme investigations pertains to the business model but is included in the marketing section."

Therefore I made some changes to the Article text that addressed those problems (simply a new subsection for the Patents), and some changes in the titles of the subheaders. These changes were reverted with the comments "this was not what I had suggested at all and the edits are problematic for various reasons as outlined on Talk -- proposals for changes can be discussed further there" and "keeping this in one section w/o confusing/arbitrary subheads -- see Talk‬"

The question is: Should the version on the right-hand side of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_L._VanderSloot&diff=prev&oldid=524548960 be used in Wikipedia (with further editing as needed), or should the older section on the left-hand side be used? Of course I prefer the newer version, on the right-hand side. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Direct Selling Association
Opening up discussion here at the request of Rhode Island Red as to whether the Direct Selling Association should be described in this article as (1) "a trade association that engages in public relations and lobbying efforts on behalf of the multi-level marketing industry, or (2) "a trade association that engages in public relations and lobbying efforts on behalf of its members," or (3) "a trade association." I favor No. 3 as short and to the point, but I can go with No. 2. The first choice is definitely a non-starter because the Direct Selling Association, according to its Wikipedia Article, has members that do not engage in multilevel marketing. Note also that Rhode Island Red was a heavy contributor to the DSA article in Wikipedia, so I assume he knows something about how it works. Please comment below so we can get some idea of consensus. Thank you. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I prefer 3 because the source does not mention support 1. The article already points out that the subject is involved in MSM.  Direct sales is not necessarily MSM - think of door-to-door encyclopedia and vacuum cleaner sales.  TFD (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the DSA PDF 98.7% of member sellers utilize multilevel marketing. So while it is true that some members of the DSA do not use MLM, they are in the very small minority. Grayfell (talk) 07:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct on this. Anything more verges on "editorial commentary in Wikipedia's voice" aka SYNTH.  Number 2 is a "d'oh" type wording - verging on the super-obvious (ever hear of a trade association which has nothing to do with its members and does nothing as well?)  Collect (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Making the fix per quick consensus here. Of course consensus can change. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There wasn't a consensus for this change, so you should just as quickly undo it. It is covered under WP:BTW. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course we don't go into detail like RIR wants. I am glad I don't edit this article, I would have shot myself eons ago. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You say "of course we don't..." as though it's some self-evident truth. It's not. WP:BTW makes it clear that it is preferable to include some descriptive information rather than merely relying on the hyperlink alone. It would be best if comments had at least some basis in WP policy rather than just being speculative personal opinion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the details can be found at Direct Selling Association. Thanks for commenting. It is nice to have new names here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I've updated the GLBT Section in two ways:

A. As the article has been built up over the months, it has developed into a good example of WP:Synthesis, which states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." (Emphasis supplied.) I've removed such syntheses.


 * "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made."
 * "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."

None of the sources cited in the Section explicitly states that "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates," as the article has put it up to now.

B. Some of the sources cited are not Reliable.

Of the sources cited, only four are Reliable:


 * 1) The LGBT Weekly story is an example of  good journalism.
 * 2) George Prentice is a journalist.
 * 3) Stephanie Mencimer is a journalist. She did say that "VanderSloot has long been a controversial figure in Idaho politics, particularly when it comes to issues involving gays and lesbians," but she did not explictly state that "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."
 * 4) Trudy Ring is a journalist. But in this particular article, she wrote only that "Greenwald also reported that VanderSloot has often threatened journalists who write about him and outed a gay one," citing an opinion piece by Greenwald and doing no independent reporting of her own.

None of these four sources state explicitly that VanderSloot's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."

The following sources are not Reliable, except in a very limited sense:


 * 1) The Glenn Greenwald article is not a WP:Reliable source because Greenwald is a "political commentator," as Salon stated on his page, and in this particular article is not writing as a journalist (pretty well nailed by Greenwald's non-journalist assertion that VS "has a history of virulent' 'anti-gay activism, including the spearheading of a despicable billboard campaign)."
 * 2) Jodi-May Chang may be "an independent journalist who lives in Boise," as she puts it, but in this particular article she is giving her opinion "As one of those very Idahoans active on LGBT issues," not simply reporting the facts as a journalist would. Also, nowhere in his article does she state that VS's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."
 * 3) Rachel Maddow is described in her WP article as an "American television host, political commentator, and author," not as a journalist.
 * 4) Dean Miller is certainly a journalist. But this particular citation is to an opinion column, written in the first person, not to a news story that can be used as a Reliable Source.

And even Greenwald, Chang, Maddow and Miller do not explicitly state that VanderSloot's "controversial stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates."

Of course sources like the four just above can be used as WP:RS, but not if they involve "claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)."

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to revert everything you've done today as ridiculously tendentious and downright silly. First, you remove the sources that amount to journalists and gay rights advocates criticising VanderSloot's views/actions re gay rights.  Then, you remove the statement about "criticism from journalists and gay rights advocates" because you don't perceive that that statement has any support in sources.  There is nothing at all in RS saying that opinion pieces cannot be used to support statements about the opinions of the commentators -- in fact, RS says precisely the opposite.  The point about self-published sources is entirely irrelevant given that these are not self-published sources.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * One may not agree with the reasoning, but it is hard to argue against the fact that the new version says what the Sources say and says it accurately, without editorializing and without violating WP:BLP. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As per Nomo's comment, there was no justifiable reason for deleting the sources or the text. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The reasons are: Pure synthesis and faulty sources. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except there is no synthesis and the sources are clearly WP:RS. Several sources have referred to VS as virulently anti-gay, so it would not be out of line if the article mentioned that. However, the current version of the BLP takes a much more conservative approach and merely says that his stances on gay issues have generated controversy -- perfectly reasonable. The repeated attempts at whitewashing are tendentious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A discussion on this topic has been opened at No original research/Noticeboard. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment
The questions are:


 * 1) Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the 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?

The discussion is taking place at No original research/Noticeboard. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Notices have been sent to all editors who have posted at Talk:Frank L. VanderSloot, except for User:Chum and change, who could not be located. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Having no knowledge of this man I had to do some research on him before I decided whether or not to get involved. I've read the conversation so far, including on the other page, and I think I'm pretty well caught up. I believe that the section, as it currently exists on the page, is rather good. The first sentence is well supported by the articles linked(do we need so many for one sentence?) and is not original research. I believe that the list of people that condemned him and that he later threatened lawsuits against don't need to be as long either. One or two examples should suffice in each case. Ayzmo (talk) 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The extensiveness of the "criticism" material appears to run counter to Wikipedia policy. BLPs are not supposed to show how evil a person is, but to present an WP:NPOV biography. Collect (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That assertion goes well beyond the topic of this thread. Nonetheless, it's unclear what you are referring to as "criticism". The article reports that VanderSloot is a prominent financier of conservative causes and candidates (including attack ads); that he has taken stances on LGBT issues that have generated controversy; that he has threatened to sue some of his critics; that his company was targeted by various agencies (for misleading advertising, etc.). Those are not criticisms; they are merely facts -- facts that have been widely covered by reliable secondary sources. Based on these facts, some might consider VS to be a hero (you perhaps?) and others might see him as evil; but that's their call to make. The important thing is that the article does not make any such judgments, it merely reports the facts. That's the very definition of NPOV. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I am responding to the RFC, having no previous interest or knowledge of the subject. I'll respond on the LGBT point first. It seems unavoidable to me say anything other than the fact that Mr V has attracted significant hostility and criticism from LGBT communities. Whether that is justified or not is another matter. Mr V's own response, with his rebuttal of the criticisms, clearly demonstrates the fact that he was criticised. It seems to me that Mr V's decision to involve himself in a political campaign to change the law removing the right to have a gay marriage, i.e. removing a legal right, is more than likely to be the cause of the hostility. To ensure balance the article should be clear that Mr V does not believe that LGBT communities are the source of the criticism and hostility and that Mr V believe he has been targeted by President Obama, perhaps using the quote in the WSJ. On the first question, I don't have a particular problem with RIR's text but I do not think it is particularly well written or encyclopeadic. GL's text I am sorry to say reads rather like Mr V's advertorial. On the last question, I will not address this directly but rather I will raise a couple of issues that I hope will allow things to be moved forward. Who is Mr V? I think that we can all agree that Mr V is a major republican party donor who is a highly successful businessman. I presume that is why Mr V has an entry on wiki. It is difficult to write well concerning matters where there are strong personal views. RIR and GL are clearly at loggerheads. I hope these comments will allow the article to be completed. Isthisuseful (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I appreciate Isthisuseful's comment, but I had hoped to have an answer to to the three questions I asked above, which had to do with synthesizing the material and providing accurate and reliable sources. I worded my questions in a carefully neutral way, which I am afraid has been very much misunderstood, and I apologize for my infelicity, if such it is, or for paucity of communication. As for the comment, "GL's text I am sorry to say reads rather like Mr V's advertorial" could be something I could fix if I knew just what text Isthisuseful is talking about. Can he or she provide a diff to the text? One again, thank you, Isthisuseful. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Dean Miller sentence in LGBT section
I deleted this sentence: "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.[118]" last week and my change was reverted. I deleted it for the following reasons:
 * The word "however" is not encyclopedic in this case.
 * Miller published this article in 2006, yet the sentence implies that he wrote it "later" than a 2012 statement by VanderSloot in the preceding sentence.
 * If written in 2006, why not simply include Miller in the first sentence in the paragraph, along with Maddow and Greenwald?

I request that this sentence be deleted again. If not, come to some consensus on editing it so that it is at least neutral and chronological.HtownCat (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember it happening, but can't remember the reason given for the reversion. Do you have a diff, or a date? GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

-- I don’t see any problem with the use of “however”. The point about the use of “later” is technically valid but it misses the larger issue – i.e., that several sources – respected journalists and other organizations, as well as Zuckerman himself – said that it was not public knowledge that the reporter was gay. VanderSloot is the only one who alleged otherwise, and he did so (via a written statement to the Statesman) using hearsay; he is not a journalist or a news organization, and he has no reputability as a source to comment as to whether or not Zuckerman’s being gay was publicly known. Furthermore, his account clearly does not jibe with what the other sources wrote.

The gist of those sources was that Vandersloot (a) made the accusation that the reporter’s being gay caused him to write a biased series of articles; (b) that his attack of the articles’ integrity was meritless and ill-informed; (c) that he outed Zuckerman; and (d) that his attack was nothing more than an ad hominem and consistent with his previous history of actions that were widely regarded as antigay. The reporter’s work received multiple prestigious journalism awards, and VanderSloot’s allegation that the reporting was biased falls flat on these and other grounds as detailed in the Neiman Reports article.

Ultimately, VanderSloot’s written statement should not be cited as a source to judge whether his own actions constituted outing Zuckerman. Clearly, the consensus is that he did. It might be OK to simply say he denied it, but it’s not OK to end the story there and ignore the fact that the basis for his denial was negated.

So we have a couple of options. One is to omit VanderSloot’s denial altogether, in which case the last sentence referring to Dean Miller would be unnecessary. The other option is to briefly mention only that VanderSloot denied that he outed Zuckerman and then include commentaries indicating that was not in fact the case.

The current version reads:

“VanderSloot denied the charge, saying that had attempted to defend Zuckerman's motives, that Zuckerman had already posted his sexual orientation on a public website, and that a local radio show and the community had been discussing the fact;[131] 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.

If not option 1, then a revision along these lines (option 2) would be suitable:

“VanderSloot denied the allegation, however, Zuckerman’s sexual orientation was known only by his family and a few of his close friends and colleagues, according to Post Register editor Dean Miller and Zuckerman himself.”

or

"VanderSloot denied the charge, however, Post Register editor Dean Miller reported that Zuckerman's sexual orientation had been known only by Zuckerman's family and a few of his close friends and colleagues, and in a May 2012 TV interview, Zuckerman disputed VanderSloot’s contention."

For reference purposes, here are some of the relevant excerpts that summarize the key details:


 * "In response to this six-part exposé — which won the Scripps Howard Award for Distinguished Service to the First Amendment – VanderSloot went on a virtual jihad against the newspaper and the principal reporter who exposed the scandal, Peter Zuckerman. VanderSloot bought numerous full-page newspaper ads in The Post Register that attacked the story and explicitly identified the reporter, Zuckerman, as “a homosexual” (Zuckerman had previously written for a small Florida paper about being gay when he lived in that state, but had kept his sexual orientation largely a secret since he moved to rural Idaho). Vandersloot’s full-page ad expressly described the “speculation” that Zuckerman’s homosexuality had made him hostile to the Scouts and LDS: “the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be Scout Leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused Zuckerman to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism.” While the ad absurdly sought to repudiate the very “speculation” about Zuckerman which it had just amplified (“We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives”), the predictable damage was done. Zuckerman’s editor, Dean Miller, explained: “Our reporter, Peter Zuckerman, was not ‘out’ to anyone but family, a few colleagues at the paper (including me), and his close friends”; but after VanderSloot outed him to his community in that ad, “strangers started ringing Peter’s doorbell at midnight. His partner of five years was fired from his job.”


 * ''"Our reporter, Peter Zuckerman, was not "out" to anyone but family, a few colleagues at the paper (including me), and his close friends. When the magnitude of the story became evident, I vetted him thoroughly, making sure he had not been active in the debate over gay scouts and had not been kicked out of a troop.


 * Peter's personal life and the series itself went under the microscope in June when a local multimillionaire, Frank VanderSloot, began buying full-page critical ads in our Sunday paper. He devoted several paragraphs to establishing that Zuckerman is gay. He noted the Mormon Church opposes gay marriage and that the Boy Scouts no longer allow gay men to lead troops, but briefly added: "We think it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman's motives."


 * Strangers started ringing Peter's doorbell at midnight. His partner of five years was fired from his job. Despite the harassment, Peter kept coming to work and chasing down leads on other pedophiles in the Grand Teton Council, while continuing to cover his courts and cops beat. I spoke at his church one Sunday and meant it when I said that I hope my son grows into as much of a man as Peter had.


 * The local Boy Scout executive had declared Stowell was the only child molester he'd discovered in the Grand Teton Council. But by midsummer, the paper was hunting for documentation on a dozen leaders whom victims and their families had identified to us as pedophiles. Meanwhile, the Post Register kept on printing VanderSloot's ads, even when they included serious mischaracterizations, errors of fact, and glaring omissions, such as the fact that the Boy Scouts' national staffer in charge of youth protection had just pleaded guilty to trading in child pornography. VanderSloot said his ads, which he labeled "The Community Page," were intended to bolster people who were too scared of the mighty Post Register to speak up...Peter Zuckerman, in particular, persevered despite repeated threats that were inflamed by a carefully orchestrated ad hominem attack on him and his work.''


 * "VanderSloot took out a full-page newspaper ad that challenged the stories and said the reporter who wrote them was a homosexual. The reporter, Peter Zuckerman, no longer with the newspaper, recently appeared on the Rachel Maddow show on MSNBC to say that only a few people knew he was gay before the ad ran, that he received threats afterward and that his boyfriend lost his job. VanderSloot recently put out a written statement saying it was public knowledge that Zuckerman was gay, that Zuckerman had written it on a website, and that a local radio show had been “abuzz for several weeks” about his sexual orientation."


 * ''“when they published that ad about that young reporter at that Idaho newspaper and went on at length about that young reporter being gay while they were attacking' him for being biased, they say that was not outing him as we described it in our broadcast because of the fact that the reporter is gay had previously been discussed on an Idaho radio station and in a blog post that he had previously written...Frank VanderSloot in all likelihood, was the person breaking the news about this young man's sexual orientation, by printing it in that paper in that ad.


 * ZUCKERMAN: There was a tremendous impact on me both personally and professionally. Personally, it was really hard when my boyfriend, at the time, came home and said, 1 don't have my job anymore. They know I'm gay. They know about my relationship with you. They don't want me there anymore" And it was really hard for him. He actually got sick soon afterwards and was in bed for a month. I didn't know how we were going to pay the bills. It was really hard when people started leaving notes on my doorstep, when somebody kept calling in the middle of the night threatening to rape me with his handgun. That was - I mean, that was really terrible. And then professionally, it became much harder to do my job because, yes, Idaho Falls was buzzing about my sexual orientation. And, you know, when I tried to talk to people, they would say things like, "Oh, I can't talk to you. You're a homosexual. We don't associate with that"


 * MADDOW: Did all of this happen because you were being discussed on a local radio show or did this happen not until your name appeared on the ad?


 * ZUCKERMAN: I absolutely dispute that contention. Idaho Falls Post Register" was the place I worked. It was my colleagues I worked with, II was the people on my beat. Yes, a handful of people knew I'm gay. My boyfriend knew I was gay. My parents and boss knew I was gay. My boss knew I’m gay. But most -- I hadn’t told anybody on my beat that fm gay and for good reason, because I was warned they wouldn't talk to me. And I feel like the worse part isn't so much that I was harassed, but was that this was really important story that needed to get out there. This was a story about child molesters in the boy scouts.  It was about trying to protect kids from these kind of pedophiles. And by making it so hard for me to gather information, it actually really limited the story. There’s a lot more to that story that I was not able to get.  And this was a major contributor for one of reasons I couldn't get it.”''


 * "Rachel Maddow last week...exposed VanderSloot’s involvement in outing an Idaho reporter...“VanderSloot ran a full-page ad closely resembling a news story in length and formatting in which he spoke against Zuckerman and also revealed his status as a gay man. During his time on “The Rachel Maddow Show,” Zuckerman explained that the ad had “a tremendous impact,” including widespread discrimination on the part of members of the small and conservative community in which he and his partner lived…In response to the segment, VanderSloot and his attorneys attempted to silence Maddow on the subject, requesting that the story be removed from the web and then protesting when Maddow publicized their request on the air…The MSNBC host went on to explain that VanderSloot claims he did not “out” Zuckerman with his ad; yet not long after Maddow’s segment with Zuckerman, the ad quietly disappeared from Melaleuca, Inc.’s ad archives.”


 * "When a local reporter in Idaho Falls reported on the cover-up of child molestation incidents by the Boy Scouts and local Mormon church members, VanderSloot led a personal crusade against the reporter and outed him as gay. VanderSloot claimed that “the Boy Scout’s position of not letting gay men be scout leaders, and the LDS Church’s position that marriage should be between a man and a woman may have caused [the reporter] to attack the scouts and the LDS Church through his journalism.” The reporter later won the Scripps Howard Award for Distinguished Service to the First Amendment for his reporting."  (unsigned content posted by Rhode Island Red)
 * I've posted a revision; the source I've used is just the bare url, perhaps someone else could give a proper ref entry. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A record. Collect (talk) 16:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I see what HtownCat is driving at: He or she thinks that including Miller in the first sentence (as has already been done) is sufficient for this paragraph, which already goes at great length into this issue. I tend to agree, citing WP:Weight. I mean, considering this entire section is based to a great part on really dubious Sources about an event that takes up a fraction of VDS's life story, what could be the harm to the encyclopedia or the reader's understanding of the man to omit it? I would consent to its removal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've ever heard anyone cite "lack of harm to WP" as a justification for deleting properly sourced content from an article. The discussion has progressed quite a bit since HTownCat raised his concern about chronology, and Nomo has since made appropriate revisions to address that concern. HTownCat mentioned nothing about WP:UNDUE nor does it apply in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's like any kind of editing. You don't have to say the same thing twice. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment
Should each mention of advertisements by VanderSloot against judicial candidates be labelled as "attack ads"? Should the words "attack ads" be wikilinked multiple times in the BLP? Should the term "attack ads" appear in both the lead and in the body? Is the complete list of ads UNDUE in the BLP in the first place? 00:20, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments
I suggest that iterating and repeating "attack ads" as was in an earlier state of this BLP was redundant and potentially non-neutral language when combined with the word "against" which rather implies on its own that the ads did not support the person named. I further suggest that iterating "attack ads" provides a non-neutral wording for the BLP, and that the extensive material critical of VanderSloot actually breaches the level of UNDUE in the first place. Collect (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It would be a good start to see the sources that call these 'attack ads' as well. Arkon (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you're in luck, Arkon -- it happens that there is a list immediately above this section. I don't think we need to go overboard with the term in our article, but there's no question that this is a well-used phrase in sources relevant here.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources do mention that these are considered attack ads, so the phrase is usable, however using it repeatedly is unnecessary and over-linking doesn't make any sense. Such repetitions have been removed at this point though, so the issue is moot in my mind--no one is arguing for more uses of the term at this point. Jeremy112233 (talk) 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, your comment included a question that has never been an issue. Namely, there has never been a version of the article in which every instance of the term attack ad was wikilinked and nobody ever suggested that it should be, so the question is a non sequitor (and the answer is an obvious no).


 * On a more general note, WP guidelines on wikilinking (WP:OVERLINK) state the following: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Thus my suggestion to link once in the lead and once on first mention in the body text was perfectly reasonable.


 * Secondly, you previously reverted my edit in which I added the term back to the body text of the article in one place (appropriately sourced of course) so that it would be consistent with the use of the term in the lead. I explained very clearly in my edit summary and on the Talk page the rationale for doing so. I also directed you to WP:LEAD for guidance, because the relevant guideline is unmistakably clear. I can only assume that you either didn't take the time to read it, or that you simply disregarded it. Regardless, please take note now:


 * "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects...It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.


 * It would be really helpful if you actually read the comments I post and take heed of them. This whole exercise was futile and unnecessary, as I had already proposed a perfectly reasonable compromise, which you chose to reject in lieu of edit warring. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT gets really tiresome after a while. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Read WP:AGF and WP:NPA please. Your last edit wikilinks the phrase twice - and where the phrase is contentious, repeating the wikilink is surely contentious.   You use editorial columns as a source for the claims.  Columns which do not meet WP:BLP for contentious claims.  You had at one point a full   five uses of the phrase.    And reverted to make sure there were five full uses of the phrase.   Now you try deriding me as not knowing Wikipedia policies - which is not how to win friends and influence people, Red.   Wikilinking a phrase sourced to editorial opinion columns twice in a BLP is a clear example of trying to push a POV.  And your posts above make clear your distaste for VanderSloot, and I suggest that editing a BLP in order to show one's distaste for the person is a teensy bit likely to be viewed as non-neutral.  I have absolutely no personal, financial, political, social, religious or other connection to VanderSloot whatsoever.  And absolutely no connection to any other editors on this article whatsoever.  And I would note that I was not the one who did six reverts in 16 hours.    Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Collect, WP:OVERLINK makes it clear that's it's perfectly acceptable to wikilink a term once in the lead and once in the body text. There is no special proviso that says "unless (Collect thinks) the term is contentious, in which case repeating the term is surely contentious." If this is what your argument boils down to now, then I have to say it's much ado about nothing. BTW, I did not say that you didn't know WP policy; I questioned why you ignored the policies and went on a tear for nothing. One last suggestion -- check out WP:TPG and notice the parts about staying on the topic of the thread and focusing on editorial issues. Cheers. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again - please read WP:NPA. You seem unable to make a single post without making it a personal attack.   And drop the grossly uncivil claim of "tag teaming" as it has been found to be uncivil many times now.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Jeremy, we've had a few disagreements of our own in the past, so I just wanted to let you know that I truly appreciate you taking an objective view on this. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I see no need to use the term "attack ads" as it is 9at least where I live) only ever used to disparage an opponent. Further, a complete list of the ads would be undue.  -- No  unique  names  18:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Some of the items on the list above submitted by Rhode Island Red can simply be ignored—that is, any that don't use the specific phrase "attack ad." I would also ignore the item headlined "Attack ads have local link," in which a copy editor attempted to sum up the story just below and possibly did a bad job of it. Also, the opinion piece headlined "If you buy radio stations, who needs attack ads?" is simply that — an opinion piece, with a question as a headline. But, in any event, the neutral term advertising would also cover the attack ads, so what is the problem with simply using a term that covers the whole range? Yes, take out "attack ads": The phrase is pejorative. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I don´t think "attack ads" should be used in the lead. "Advertisements" is a broader and more neutral word that covers it. "Attack ads" may be used one or more times in the body where the ads are discussed more specifically, if there are valid references. I agree with George Louis that caracteristics that are only in the headlines/ingress of a newspaper piece, and not in the body should normally be ruled out as headlines/ingesses are typically written by the desk and not by journos. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yet another comment from WP Project Conservatism editor. We already know what the WP Project Conservatism editors' POV is on the issue. It's unclear however, why that position favors a vague term (advertisement) over the specific well-defined term (attack ads) used by the sources in question. "Attacks ad" is not an insult -- it is what the ads are and were called. Some input from editors independent of the Conservative project is needed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So I am a WP Project Conservatism editor now, am I ? Nope. Never been. Please retract your statement and please refrain from further personal attacks. There was an invitation to comment and I did. No reason at all for you to get incivil just because I happened to have another view than yours. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Didn't mean to rough your feathers. My statement may not have been entirely accurate, perhaps, but it was not too far off the mark either. I just assumed you were actually a member of WPPC based on a quick glance at the feed of "Articles on Conservatism" on your user page and the link to Andrew Schlafly, founder of Conservapedia, listed among your "Articles of Interest". That in itself sufficient to support my concerns about getting input in a content dispute exclusively from a particular narrow band of the political spectrum. Having gotten that out of the way, I have no intention of belaboring the issue here. If I feel that we are not getting sufficiently neutral input on disputes, I'll look to resolve it elsewhere. As for the content dispute, I don't understand the logic of your assertion to censor the specific and well-defined term used by the sources and replace it with a more vague term, and clearly I'm not alone in that position. 00:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "was not too far off the mark either". I do think it was, and I do find your attitude of going to people´s usepages to profile them instead of just relating to what they say very troublesome. It doesn´t help that I feel your reply was kind of insinuating by pointing out things you found on my usepage (and a subpage) that "support[ed] [your] concerns". To set things completely straight it now appears I may have to explain myself; I find that very unfortunate. Your idea to henceforth focus on content rather than users, appears very wise. But since suspicions have been raised about myself, I may find it necessary to come back to address your insinuations. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Iselilja, RIR. "Please refrain from baseless personal attacks." Actually, please refrain from personal attacks, period. I have a compendium of some of your personal attacks and will share it with you on your Talk Page, if you feel it might be helpful to you. Or I could send it in a private e-mail that no one else would see. Perhaps my doing so would help further the project by making you aware of how I at least feel about the remarks you have been making either here or in the Edit Summaries. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No George, please do not contact me by e-mail now or ever, and only post on my Talk page if policy requires it. Aside from that, I don't think it's productive to continue to air concerns about user conduct issues here, so going forward I think it would be best if you focused only on content issues when addressing me or commenting about my posts. I will do the same. That would be productive. If things continue to escalate, I'm afraid the matter might have to be hashed out at ArbCom. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Uninvolved Comment - When it comes to WP:BLP all questionable info should be relentlessly deleted. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sue, Jimbo was referring specifically to random speculation. That is not in fact the case here, as virtually all of the sources referred to the ads as "attack ads". The term has a specific meaning and it differs from the more general vague term "advertisements". So the argument you presented does not hold water. The info is not questionable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments
There seem to be four questions asked here which I have repeated below


 * 1) Should each mention of advertisements by VanderSloot against judicial candidates be labelled as "attack ads"?
 * 2) Should the words "attack ads" be wikilinked multiple times in the BLP?
 * 3) Should the term "attack ads" appear in both the lead and in the body?
 * 4) Is the complete list of ads UNDUE in the BLP in the first place? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Martin, those assertions don't seem to consistent with WP policy/GLs. WP:OVERLINK states that a term can be wikilinked in the lead and once again on first mention. It's a minor point, but either way the term should be wikilinked on first mention regardless of where it appears. Secondly, if the term appears in the lead, then it must in the body text as per WP:LEAD. Lastly, the compromise proposal was to use the term once in the first paragraph of the body text and once in the lead, not to include it repeatedly throughout the body text.
 * No to 1..3. (Yes to 4).  There seems to be an increasing use of WP for campaigning and soapboxing.  We are writing an encyclopedia not a campaign vehicle.  Just because something is in a source does not mean that we should include it here if it serves no encyclopedic purpose, neither must we use the language of our sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the assertion that including the term attack ads makes the article a campaign vehicle. The term has a precise meaning and it is used by the sources and in the article in accordance with that well-defined meaning. Journalistic coverage of VanderSloot's attack ads spans a decade -- there has been steady coverage of VanderSloots political financing, referred to explicitly as attack ads. The term was not used by one or two sources but by many; it's not a matter of why the term should be included (since the justification is clear) but rather why it would be warranted to censor it. If your argument is that the term should not appear anywhere, then that will be difficult to justify. The vague argument has been raised that use of the term somehow violates WP:NEUTRAL. I see absolutely no evidence of this, so if I missed a relevant statement in that policy, please point it out. According to my understanding, censoring the term would be biased and a violation of WP:NPOV, given that the policy states: "(NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)


 * An RfC is a Request for Comment and not a place to try rebutting every independent view expressed as a result. Try letting the other folks actually express views on the questions posed, please. Collect (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My comment was entirely appropriate since this is the place for discussion of editorial issues, not to hand down dictates chiseled in stone, nor to police other editors as you just did. Keep the comments focused on content please. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hiatus
I have stopped editing this article and will resume at 12:01 p.m. PST, my local time, on December 27, 2012, but I will continue to monitor and make suggestions on the Talk Page as well as the RFC pages. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging by these edits, the hiatus ended today. The pledge to abstain barely lasted 2 weeks. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you cited are of course not edits. Have a happy holiday season. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Inverted pyramid vs. chronological?
The question is, Should this subsection be written with the most important information first, in the inverted-pyramid style, or in a chronological style, with the accusation first and the result second? It is my contention that because the charge was dropped and because this accusation was so long ago that using the chronological style here would be infusing this subsection with a decidedly partial tone.

Inverted-pyramid style In 1992 officials in Michigan and Idaho "cleared the company's marketing plan" of accusations it had countenanced violation of state legislation; they "blamed 'renegade' distributors for any problems." In Florida investigators were "looking at whether the company complies with state laws barring unfair trade practices and pyramid schemes." [36] In that year, Melaleuca signed an assurance of voluntary compliance with Michigan and Idaho agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[11][31][37][38]

Chronological style In the 1990s, Melaleuca was targeted by Michigan regulators and the Idaho attorney general's office for various marketing violations. In 1991 Melaleuca received a cease-and-desist order for violating Michigan’s anti–pyramid scheme laws.[36] In 1992, Melaleuca signed a consent decree with the states of Michigan and Idaho agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[11][31][37][25][38][39] Subsequently, "officials in both states cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed 'renegade' distributors for any problems."[40]

I agree the first paragraph could be improved in its diction, but the main thrust should still be on the result and not the cause. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your summary of the difference is decidedly incomplete. Your preferred version makes no reference to the consent degree.  I also think it fails to provide the reader a sufficient understanding of what the issue was; it only conveys that the company was cleared of something, not what the something was.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a paragraph that keeps it all:

In 1992 officials in Michigan and Idaho "cleared the company's marketing plan" of accusations that Melaleuca had countenanced violation of state laws. The previous year Melaleuca had received a cease-and-desist order alleging the firm had broken Michigan’s anti–pyramid scheme laws.[36] In Florida investigators had been investigating whether the firm had complied with laws "barring unfair trade practices and pyramid schemes." [37] In 1992, Melaleuca signed an assurance of voluntary compliance with Michigan and Idaho agreeing to "not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[11][31][38][39] Subsequently, "officials in both states cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed 'renegade' distributors for any problems."[40]
 * I agree wholly with Nomo on this one. The incidents were mentioned by several sources and none positioned the issue in the manner that George is suggesting. The proposed text lacks sufficient context and detail and seems quite misleading. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Highlighting the charges, rather than the settlement, certainly violates WP:NPOV. What is the reason for keeping the chronological order? Also, the pyramid version has exactly the same data as the chrono version, including the sources. The settlement is certainly more important than the charges, which indeed were only charges. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * George the version you are proposing is inconsistent with what the majority of sources wrote about the incidents. First of all, Melaleuca was not "charged"; they were "investigated". The investigation did not show that there was no evidence of wrongdoing -- quite the contrary; evidence of wrongdoing was found. The company was only able to prevent further action being taken by making concessions and agreeing to take remedial action. In addition, among the half dozen or so sources|accessdate=09/08/2012 that described the incidents, none mentioned anything remotely like what you have proposed above (based on the Orlando Sentinel article). Here are specific examples:


 * In 1992, the Michigan attorney general's office investigated Melaleuca's business practices. The attorney general alleged that materials about a company program claimed participants were "making $80,000 to $100,000 within one or two years," and that bonuses were paid simply for recruiting new participants, which is illegal in Michigan. The AG also alleged that literature from a Michigan participant made false and misleading representations that the company was endorsed by the Michigan attorney general and the Federal Trade Commission. "The [assurance] in this instance is very extensive and not our typical boilerplate," says Robert Ward Jr., the former Michigan assistant attorney general who drafted the agreement with Melaleuca. "We seem to really nail them down to specific remedies not ordinarily required in these cases... We were concerned with earnings claims and their entire marketing program. Melaleuca did not admit wrongdoing, but it 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. For a year, the state required the company to report monthly to the AG's office on the results of its effort to ensure compliance with the agreement.


 * "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."


 * "In 1991, after being slapped with a cease-and-desist order for violating Michigan’s anti–pyramid scheme laws, Melaleuca signed an agreement with the state’s attorney general under which it agreed to change its business practices."


 * These sources all paint a very different picture from the simple dismissal alluded to in the Orlando Sentinel article, which says that the marketing plan was eventually cleared but fails to mention the cease and desist order, that wrongdoing was in fact found, and that the company had to make concessions and change its business practices in order to be compliant with the law. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All of which has little to do with the order in which the facts are given. From what you are saying, this section could be beefed up, and I suggest that you simply add all the pertinent information to the piece if you feel it necessary, but for consensus on this to mean anything, the results of all the legal activity should be be in the first sentence, not buried way down at the bottom.  I feel you have not at all mentioned the topic I introduced at the beginning of this Talk section—chronological vs. inverted-pyramid—but simply reverted the Article section because you don't like Frank VanderSloot and want the WP article about the man and his life to be as negative as possible. I shouldn't have to remind you that "reverting good-faith actions of other editors may be disruptive and can even lead to the reverter being temporarily blocked from editing," because I am fully aware that you know a great deal about WP policies and procedures. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * RIR's point is that saying that MI and ID "cleared the company's marketing plan" is not a good summary of the results of all the legal activity. I think he has presented good evidence in favor of that point.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

What gives?
I made a good-faith effort to meld all the viewpoints expressed above into a new paragraph that was written in the inverted-pyramid style (desired by GeorgeLouis), on the left side of this diff, omitting none of the other information which Nomo and Rhode Island apparently want to retain. User:Nomoskedasticity then simply reverted back to the version on the right-hand side with the Edit Summary (this edit is plainly lacking consensus on the talk page. What gives??) For the information of other editors, the right-side (reverted) version does not now enjoy consensus, nor did it ever enjoy such consensus, so how come it is preferred by Nomo, who apparently values consensus (as we all should)? I refer Nomo to the stricture above that "reverting good-faith actions of other editors may be disruptive." It is also terribly wasteful of the other editors' time. I am again returning the paragraph to a form that gives the result of these investigations—rather than their inception—at the top of the paragraph, and I invite any other editors to edit the paragraph accordingly and to correct any errors, if there are any. Just reverting won't solve anything. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see that Nomo reverted back to the previous version, which did not have consensus. As I told him on his Talk Page, nothing has been taken out of this section. It has the same information, just presented with the result at the top, and not at the bottom. What could be wrong with that? GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it was the proposed changes to the article that did not have consensus. The version that Nomo reverted from was even worse than the examples provided at the outset of this discussion; i.e. there was already a problem with omitting key details and over-reliance on the Orlando sentinel article, which put forth a superficial interpretation of the events that did not gibe with the other sources, and this problem was then compounded by including in the text a second summary based on the Sentinel article (one at the beginning of the paragraph and another at the end). Seems rather tendentious for George to make such a change unilaterally, when reasonable objections had already been raised, and then claim that reverting the lone supporter for the change. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If anybody believes something was left out, I suggest he or she simply edit the version which I supplied, with the most important information at the top. There is no sense in just reverting to a previous version, with the dénouement buried at the bottom, because there is going to be no consensus on that. On the other hand, any well-sourced amendment to the inverted-pyramid version might very well result in consensus, if they are simply added to the Article instead of just being talked about on the Talk Page. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim that they were 'cleared' of wrongdoing is not supported by the majority of reliable sources. If it were, it probably would be the most important statement in the paragraph, and so would (under your interpretation) belong at the top of the paragraph.  Since it isn't true or reported by any WP:RS other than (possibly) the Orlando Sentinal, it shouldn't be at the top.  Perhaps chronological is the way to go.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be fair, many of the sources are opinion pieces that are pretty open about not presenting a well rounded view of VanderSloot. One way or another, I doubt that cases from the 1990s are still pending.  I believe that the paragraph should be more forward about the fact that these are all 15+ year old allegations. Andrew (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hats off to Arthur Rubin for at least looking at the sources within the article, many of which, as Andrew noted, are not Reliable at all. In fact, the Mother Jones piece had to be refashioned upon complaints from Melaleuca, with copious corrections made in the Internet version. The burden of proof in WP is upon the editor who inserts the information, not upon he or she who removes it. Some of these sources predated the "clearance" as announced by the Orlando Sentinel, so of course they are only reporting on the charges, not the results (because they weren't available then). I suggest the whole paragraph be taken out as violative of WP:BLP strictures. It really gives WP:Undue weight to these rather ancient bureaucratic snufflings-about. It is simply one more stroke in a painting of VDS determined to make him look like an evil creep. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To take your last point, first, Melaleuca, Inc. redirects here, so something that should normally be in that article should be in this one.
 * Although we can't use this analysis as being WP:OR, they were not cleared. After the settlement agreement, the goverments decided not to prosecute (further).  That's not "cleared".  It might be misleading if all the other sources were before this alleged "clearance", but I think it would be fair to include the paragraph, and, at the end, state that the Orlando Sentinal article declares that they were cleared.  I'm not sure if it should be chronological or an "inverted pyramid", leaving the settlement as the most important act.  (I'm using some sources not in the article to verify, although I'm not sure those sources are reliable.  For that matter, I'm not sure the Sentinal article is reliable.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Another possibility
Good work. I have to agree about using the word "cleared." Here's another version that might do the job. Can we kick this one around for a while?

"In the 1990s, Melaleuca was publicly reported to be under investigation three times by state and federal regulators. In 1991 Michigan state regulators 'cleared the company's marketing plan' of any violation of state law after Melaleuca had received a cease-and-desist order alleging the firm had broken Michigan’s anti–pyramid-scheme laws.[48] The company signed an assurance of voluntary compliance with Michigan, agreeing to 'not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[12][49] In 1992, Melaleuca signed an assurance of voluntary compliance with Idaho wherein state officials explained that they “had no grounds to take enforcement action against Melaleuca under Idaho law,” but Melaleuca agreed to 'not engage in the marketing and promotion of an illegal pyramid.”[12][50] According to Adam Yeomans of the Orlando Sentinel, Idaho officials 'cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed 'renegade' distributors for any problems.'[49]  According to Yeomans, writing in September 1992, the Food and Drug Administration 'accused Melaleuca of deceiving consumers about some of its supplements.'  VanderSloot said he would cooperate with the probe and that a 'couple dozen' distributors who broke the rules had been fired.[49]"

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)