Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive 8

Idaho ballot initiatives
I don't understand the ballot procedure in Idaho. The Legislature approved some laws that were signed by the governor. Then what? Somebody passed petitions to repeal them? But the measures put on the ballot actually were in favor of the laws, right? How did that happen? The ballot measures were defeated, so that meant the laws were overturned. Very confusing. Could we have a really good edit of that section to make it clear what happened? I tried but couldn't make head or tail of it. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I haven't studied Idaho's "referendum" process, but, in California, if a measure is passed in the legislature, and signed by the governor, not as an "urgency" bill, signatures can be gathered in opposition. If sufficient signatures are gathered, it's put on the ballot, as "Shall SB123 be affirmed" (or something like that).  So, a "yes" vote is to affirm the law, while a "no" vote is to repeal the law.  Simple enough?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * George seems to be the only one who finds this overly confusing and he has made no effort to propose a modification that is more to his liking, so I am removing the tag, again. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. A tag can be placed by an editor who doesn't have a clue as to what is going on, like me, in hopes that somebody with a modicum of sense, like Arthur Rubin, can explain things. Thank you, Arthur Rubin. I will send you a cookie.GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I found an article that pretty well explains the way the Idaho propositions worked, and I edited the paragraph using it as a source. Also used the Education Week story instead of the piece by David Sirota, who apparently got his info from the EW source. Other fixes as noted in the Edit Summaries. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I assumed good faith that it was simply an accident that you removed two of the sources that were cited, and I restored them. Please try to be careful with that sort of thing eh? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I deleted two of the previous sources: One of them, as I explained above, was David Sirota's opinion column from Salon.com (he quoted Education Week as his source), and the other was the article from the Olympian because that link is dead and we don't need it since we have the other good sources—including the EW story. I will let either RIR or somebody else do a reversion of Red's change because I don't want to be accused of taking part in an edit war. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:54, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You provided no valid reason for deleting either of the 2 references. As for the article in the Olympian, the appropriate course of action upon discovering that the link is no longer active would have been to (a) insert a dead link tag as per WP:DEADLINK and (b) look for alternate URL; had you done this you would have found that this same AP story was reprinted in other sources like Idaho Press-Tribune and The Argus Observer There was no reason whatsoever for deleting the Salon article; the fact that it refers to Education Week is certainly not a valid reason. In the future, use a scalpel not an axe. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * First, I am blown away by the hostility shown by Rhode Island Red's remark. I don't normally make it a practice to comment on the motives of editors because, as is well known, the Talk Page is solely here to help improve the article, so I won't go any further in that direction. Second, RIR is correct is stating that one could have posted a Deadlink tag, if one had been needed, but, as I stated, that particular link did not seem to be needed because we have a plethora of other sources: I congratulate Rhode Island Red for turning up other versions of the same story, but I am not sure why he put back the same old dead link. Third, the Salon article did not involve original reporting (it was an opinion column), but simply cited Education Week. So we can't use it. Perhaps I didn't express myself plainly before, but I hope that I have now set forth my "valid reason." It would be nice if somebody else would make these corrections so I don't have to. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll ignore the first part of your reply, since it was entirely off topic, baseless, and non-constructive. As for the second part, I'm not really interested in hearing an explanation of why you improperly removed the AP source; it matters not because the link exists and so he matter is conlcuded. As for the Salon article, your personal opinion that "we can't use it" is nonsensical and has no basis in reality. 21:04, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Synthesis and verification
Regarding the following section of text in the article:


 * "Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement that contractors purchase and store products without any guarantee that they would be sold. In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer.  The company refers to this arrangement as “Consumer Direct Marketing," a term it has trademarked.   "

I was unable to confirm the details as presented above; the quoted sources do not support the text as written, which has been improperly synthesized. As such WP:BLP requires that it be removed. Whoever added this material is welcome to provide quotes here to possibly generate text that accurately represents the sources. I also modified the section that followed the block above, which indicated that Forbes had commented about "the change in business practices". Forbes, in fact, made no such reference. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since none of the details that RIR deleted are detrimental to any person or company (in fact, they are rather favorable, and they seem to explain just what happened), there is no reason to delete them, so I restored the challenged sentences. There are, however, valid reasons for getting the citations correct; therefore I added a tag requesting better cites if they can be found. What's more, if indeed there are errors or omissions in the text, it would be better that each of the phrases or sentences be challenged individually on this Talk Page rather than that the whole thing be deleted. {I am also confused as to how RIR could have checked the Menser article when there is no valid link to it, unless he has a printed copy, and it would be helpful if that could be shared with us.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason for deleting was given properly: WP:SYNTH, thus also WP:V, and in light of your post here WP:NPOV. We do not allow favorable material to stand if it is not sourced properly.  I also note that your edit summary "restoring deleted material" was misleading insofar as the change you made included deleting other material; this has now been restored.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I accept your comments, and perhaps it would be best to reinsert the deleted information one piece at a time, if we can find the sources. To start, I'm beginning a section on this page called "Consumer Direct Marketing," a term that was deleted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking over the sources, the only part that even might be synthesis is "Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement" because it combines sources that refer to OoM's business model and sources that talk about Melaleuca's. The reliable sources that were already cited justify the rest of it.  I just added the information back to the article with additional citations.  Andrew327 17:53, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The recent edit on this section did not resolve the original issues and added some new problems. We still have the problem of WP:SYNTH and several of the references cited do not support the statement in question. Too many references have now been cited, creating a clear problem with (citation overkill, and in general the point is given undue weight. It also misrepresents the company's business model, which is MLM. Also, if anyone is going to cite sources that are not available online, the relevant portion of text should be provided here first, as this matter is under dispute. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "It also misrepresents the company's business model, which is MLM," Melaleuca uses a direct-marketing model; it denies flatly that it engages in MLM. Andrewman is simply reporting what his sources say. I tend to agree with the citation overkill comment, and I would like to see the relevant text, but none of that is absolutely essential. I applaud the editor's diligence (not for the first time regarding this article), and I would send him a kitten, but I might be accused of currying favor. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Which part of "failed verification" are you having a hard time understanding. Please do not restore this material again until the matter is resolved conclusively. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of offline sources, here is an excerpt from a Wikipedia essay that might be helpful:

"Sometimes, the use of an offline source will be challenged. Be sure to assume good faith for the user who cited the offline source. They might even be able to provide you a scan or an excerpt from that source. Consider visiting your local library to obtain a copy. Even if the library doesn't have that particular book or journal article, it might be available through interlibrary loan. Also consider posting an inquiry on the relevant WikiProject, because some interested editors might have a copy of that source. The volunteers at WikiProject Resource Exchange might be able to help you coordinate your search."

GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * When I say failed verification, I mean failed verification. The online sources do not back up the statement and, as I pointed out already, there also appears to be a problem with WP:SYNTH -- i.e., there are a plethora of sources that appear to be cited merely to back up the portion of the statement about retail locations, when there is no need to resort to even one offline source to support such a trivial detail. Secondly, there is the ongoing matter of WP:UNDUE, given that it has been established by consensus (and acknowledged by Vandersloot himself) that the company is an MLM. If you wish to paint this as a controversy of sorts, then the sources and relevant statements should be presented here for discussion. don't just give me some boilerplate nonsense about visiting the library. Make your case in a cogent and compelling manner. Don't resort to bypassing discussion and edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Gee, Red, don't get into high dudgeon]. I don't like to argue with other editors, but how can you fail a source you haven't read, and if you have, can you post the material or link to it in some way? Also you are misstating three facts: (1) There has never been a WP:consensus that Melaleuca engages in multilevel marketing; in fact, the opposite is true—the statement has been very contentious. (2) VanderSloot has never acknowledged that Melaleuca is an MLM: He simply acknowledged that ""The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare procucts, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan." (3) There is a discussion going on about your deletions right here, right now, and Andrewman started it off with the remarks above, where he stated:
 * "There has never been a WP:consensus that Melaleuca engages in multilevel marketing; in fact, the opposite is true"
 * You must not have been paying close attention during the RfC:


 * "There is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question." Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Looking over the sources, the only part that even might be synthesis is 'Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement' because it combines sources that refer to OoM's business model and sources that talk about Melaleuca's. The reliable sources that were already cited justify the rest of it. I just added the information back to the article with additional citations. Andrew327 9:53 am, Today (UTC−8).~"


 * I don't like to be so vociferous (and I am not, usually), but we editors should really attempt to get our facts straight. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Providing a two sentence summary of a business plan is not undue. What specific claims do you say failed verification? There are multiple sources to support every single thing that is written there. And the only reason that I provided so many sources to support the existence of retail locations is because you have repeatedly deleted references to the company's retail presence. The description that I posted was about as neutral as I could write. Person signs up a customer. Customer orders from the company. Person who gave the referral gets a portion of that purchase. I don't understand what part of that fails verification. It couldn't be more clearly summarized than it already is in one of the cited sources: "When a new customer is referred to Melaleuca, the customer shops direct—toll-free or online—from the company's catalog. Each time a customer shops with the company, the person who refers them shares in the revenue."  Also, saying that the company is an MLM, direct seller, or consumer direct marketer doesn't do anything to describe what it actually does.  Andrew327 01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * For now, let's not devolve into a debate about what the company does or does not do and instead focus on the content in question, which as I pointed out violated WP:SYNTH and failed verification. The two online sources that were cited did not support the proposed text. Given that the online sources were misinterpreted, there is no reason to have faith that the offline sources were used appropriately, nor should we ever have to rely on faith alone. There is an active discussion going on here about the content in question, so if you have a new proposal for text to include in the article that is based on offline sources that you have gathered, post the relevant text from those sources here for discussion/verification and we can take it from there. That would be the reasonable approach. In the grander scheme of things, how the company ships its products is trivial; it is not a "business plan" per se and really has nothing to do with Vandersloot's bio. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:SOURCEACCESS is very clear, and I'm not the only one citing it. WP:AGF is also clear.  You're the only one who believes that the copy I posted in response to your original complaint constitutes synthesis or fails verification.  Worse yet is that I voluntarily provided a quote for you from an offline source (Caribean Business) and you are still claiming that it fails verification.  One of the online sources that you claim fails verification makes the following statement: "...[Melaleuca's business model] is based on sales directly to customers—never other distributors."  That supports the content that says that customers make purchases directly from the company.  That distinguishes it from Oil of Melaleuca and other companies in which distributors are expected to buy and warehouse products at personal expense.  The other CNBC article broadly describes the company's business model and at worst should be moved to a diferent part of the BLP.  Your argument that an entire paragraph should be deleted based on one the minority of its sources is not in line with Wikipedia policy (or even essays).  By that logic, I could eliminate vast swaths of many biographies.  Continuing to revert this content smacks of ownership.  Andrew327 18:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that what makes this discussion difficult is that those who want to include "consumer-direct marketing" believe that that term is an alternative to MLM. It isn't -- instead, it's a variant of MLM in Melaleuca's case (which, given the trademarking of the term, is the only case).  It's really clear to me that the efforts to go into all sorts of detail about "CDM" amount to an effort to dilute the presentation regarding MLM.  Given the relative weight in presentation of these terms in reliable sources (and in particular the RfC close indicating consensus that the company is an MLM organization), I think there's an NPOV problem here, whatever one makes of the synth and V issues.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think of it as an alternative or a variant to MLM, I think of it more like a brand name. I know that some people disagree with me on either side, but all the controversial sentence says is that the company calls its practices by a given trademark.  This is the other sentence that keeps being reverted: VanderSloot created a business model in which contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase made by customers they refer, but customers buy directly from Melaleuca's website or retail locations..  I followed sources as closely as possible without infringing on any copyrights and there is no reason for deleting it.  As quoted above, a reliable source describes it thusly: "When a new customer is referred to Melaleuca, the customer shops direct—toll-free or online—from the company's catalog. Each time a customer shops with the company, the person who refers them shares in the revenue."  Andrew327 18:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the referenced section fails verification. There has been further edit warring (which I've stayed out of) since my last talk post without further discussion of how the section somehow fails verification or constitutes WP:SYNTH.  Andrew327 02:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that there has been no response to my posts, I restored the deleted content. I also found another quote directly supporting the content in a source that's already been cited in the BLP for months (I added it to the tag).  The content never failed verification, and it certainly passes now.  Andrew327 09:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Response to what exactly? I explained the problems clearly at the outset and you haven't resolved them. The fact that you did not receive a further response is not a tacit acceptance of the problematic material. The problems still remain and until the issues are resolved, the content in question should not be re-added to the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Anyone who thinks that the content is verified is welcome to post text from the source(s) in question to demonstrate that it is in fact verified. Of course, other considerations might come into play (e.g. WP:UNDUE; I'm not sure we need those sentences about Allen and Roger Balls, for example).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The thing is that I have provided far more sources than should be necessary to justify inclusion, especially in light of WP:SOURCEACCESS andother discussions here. I provided verification and there was no response.  As a matter of fact, there is still no response to the merits of the issue, there is only ownership by Rhode Island Red and a good faith attempt to resolve an impasse by Nomoskedasticity.  I intentionally worded the two sentences to avoid being undue, and in fact the text I wrote is more succinct than several sources.  If there is still a problem, I could just use a quote from a reliable source:


 * "Under VanderSloot's direction, the company has thrived with its Consumer Direct Marketing plan, which eliminates the middleman - no retailer, no distributor, no wholesale - reducing marketing and distribution costs. Products are shipped from Melaleuca directly to the end consumer." (Puget Sound Business Journal)


 * "When a new customer is referred to Melaleuca, the customer shops direct—toll-free or online—from the company's catalog. Each time a customer shops with the company, the person who refers them shares in the revenue." (CARIBBEAN BUSINESS)


 * There are plenty of other references to the business model that verify what is written, including saying it "...is based on sales directly to customers—never other distributors." If we needed multiple sources for every point in the article, we wouldn't even be able to include his birth date.  WP:SOURCEACCESS says that sources don't need to be hand delivered.  And yet I've provided multiple sources with excerpts that no one has rebutted.  I don't edit war, so I will wait for a response before restoring the improperly deleted content.  Andrew327 19:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My guess is that providing multiple sources is part of the problem (if there is one) -- it might suggest that one must combine the sources to get support for the text, hence "synth".
 * Let's do this sentence by sentence. First: "VanderSloot created a business model in which contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase made by customers they refer, but customers buy directly from Melaleuca's website".  The Puget Sound Business Journal basically verifies the second part (might need to say "products are shipped" rather than "customers buy directly"). Caribbean Business sort of verifies the first, except for the word "contractors" and the intro phrase "Vandersloot created a business model".  I suggest revising that passage without that latter phrase. (In my view that phrase really is a problem.)  Then give a single reference for each part.
 * Second sentence: "The company refers to this arrangement as 'Consumer Direct Marketing,' a term it has trademarked." I think that one will be easier -- but again, perhaps provide a single source for it here, quoting the passage that supports it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the other issues for the time being, the offline article in Caribbean Business (an obscure un-refereed source), which looks to be a paid promotional piece, quotes a Puerto Rican independent marketing executive for Melaleuca named Luis Velez. It is far from a reliable source in this context. An independent marketing executive is not a Melaleuca employee and has no authority or recognized expertise on the subject matter whatsoever. It vexes me greatly that someone would try to jigger the text in the article using a low-grade offline source like this, while being less than forthcoming about its true nature. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's an odd source. It has a volume and issue number, as if it were an academic journal -- but the article is indicated as a "cover story", which isn't a mode academic journals use.  The article doesn't show up in Nexis.  Andrew, does this journal have a website?  How did you find the article?  It's true that a source doesn't have to be on-line, but it's odd for something so recent not to be available.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Lexis Nexis is hit or miss with local and regional sources, and its focus is law, so it's not surprising that it doesn't archive this regional business publication. EBSCO is usually a better source for business and it has the full text from 2000-Present.  CB is certainly a reliable source per WP:RS.  It is not a peer reviewed journal, but none of the sources in this BLP are.  It is in line with other cited sources like Idaho Business Review and The Land Report and more reliable than the op-ed writers who dominate several sections.  Skimming the current issue of CB, I see a discussion of the effects that Obama's proposed minimum wage would have on Puerto Rico, several paragraphs on recent price changes in crude oil, and a feature article complaining that "The administration of Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla has yet to resume talks for a long-term, U.S.-based liquefied natural gas (LNG) contract that would enable Puerto Rico to lock into competitive energy prices for the next two decades."  In other words, exactly what you would expect to find in a respectable business publication.  The fact that they said something non-negative about a company does not change the nature of the source.  I can't imagine how this source would fail any test that could be passed by LGBT weekly (another weekly print publication) or a hit piece by AmericaOnline.  Andrew327 20:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article in question quotes an independent Melaleuca distributor; that is not a WP:RS, ignoring all the other issues (i.e. the fact that it is not a refereed publication, the article in question appears to be a paid promotional supplement, etc.). Nor would this one source, even if it were reliable, resolve the issue about WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, as outlined above. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks (to Andrew) for the tip to EBSCO. I've now read the article.  A couple of thoughts. First, the entire thing relies on the interview with the one "independent marketing executive".  Second, there are other elements of interest, apart from the passage that you are quoting.  One that I found particularly striking was the notion of "primary referrals" and "secondary referrals" -- and indeed the notion that people higher up in the chain can gain income from no less than "seven referral generations".  So, far from undermining the notion that Melaleuca is an MLM organization, the article provides some pretty strong support for it.  I'd basically agree that it satisfies RS (though with the caveat that the writer is basically just conveying what the one "independent marketing executive" told him) -- but I'm concerned about selective quoting, to construct a sentence that seems designed to undermine the MLM description, when in fact the article provides some pretty strong support for it.  In the end I have to say I'm not so opposed to putting this article in play, though the result might not be quite what some were hoping for.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * My position is that there has been so much trouble caused by the business model that a more detailed description is a good thing. I, for one, welcome an actual description of the company, which is why I wrote the section about it in the first place.  I don't think there's ever been a controversy about what the company really does, the only drama has been over referring to it as a multilevel marketing company, which is still a contentious subject.  If Melaleuca's SPS were allowed, the gist of what you added probably would have been in the article long ago.  Andrew327 21:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

On first blush, Nomo's suggestion seems reasonable. Without a source, we don't know if VDS created the model or if he picked up the idea elsewhere. By the way, one WP:Reliable source has referred to Melaleuca as using a "consumer-direct marketing" (in lower case) model (here), which of course is not the trademarked phrase. TV reporter Sasha Zimmerman quoted VanderSloot as saying:

"Melaleuca’s business model of consumer-direct marketing is the antithesis of multi-level marketing. In multi-level marketing people have to buy from the company and re-sell, the fact that they have to carry an inventory and then re-sell an inventory entices them to make an investment that they may lose because they couldn’t re-sell the product, so the business model is just to sell inventories to people and then they’ve got to get rid of the product in multi-level marketing." (Unsigned comment by GeorgeLouis 04:23, 4 March 2013)
 * The problem is that the company's business model is not the antithesis of multi-level marketing; it is multi-level marketing; and Vandersloot has already acknowledged this fact in the consent agreement he signed with the AG. The company's model is essentially identical to that of every other MLM in every critical dimension and it meets every definition of an MLM. By creating his own arbitrary and wholly deceptive definition of what an MLM is (and saying that Melaleuca doesn't fit his invented MLM definition), Vandersloot is trying to put a promotionally-friendly spin on the facts, but his allusions conflict with reality. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, and since we had an RfC that was closed showing a consensus that reliable sources describe the company as an MLM, I don't think we need to worry about continued posts that show unhappiness on the point. Anyone can have their say, but not everything merits a response.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

A response
I am responding to User:Rhode Island Red's post a few paragraphs above. I'm glad he brought up the remark by User:Lord Roem in the matter of referring to Melaleuca as a multi-level marketer in the lead. Lord Roem did indeed give his opinion that consensus favored referring to Melaleuca as an MLM, and he believed "reliable sources" showed that it was, but it was only that—his opinion, His flaw in judgment lay in the fact that many editors did not address that reference at all, but they simply gave their opinions as to whether or not the MLM reference should be in the lead. In any event, his remarks along that line are certainly not binding on us in real life, and they can be dismissed a mere dicta. A real-life look at this talk page (and the many references brought forth by Andrewman) shows that there is no "consensus." GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * QED. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's off-topic from the very simple question at hand, which is about two sentences in the article. Andrew327 19:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about going off topic, but I like to answer RIR when he makes (to me) erroneous statements so other editors realize there is some dispute about them. And, "Definition of QED (abbr) /

bing.com · Bing Dictionary / QED / physics: quantum electrodynamics? Just kidding. I know it means quod erat disputandam, I mean, who doesn't? GeorgeLouis (talk)

Rearrange Melaleuca, Inc., section
I suggest rearranging the Melaleuca, Inc., section so that (1) History is on top, followed by (2) Business model, (3) Memberships and (4) Investigations. In the example below, none of the wording has been changed from what is in there now. We can have subheaders, or drop them. I prefer using them; they make editing much easier.

History

In 1985, VanderSloot founded Melaleuca, Inc.,[1] a multi-level marketing company that sells nutritional supplements, cleaning supplies, and personal-care products,[2][3][4][5] and he has been president and chief executive officer ever since.

"Partner Allen Ball retained 45 percent of the voting stock and 38 percent of the nonvoting stock, with the balance of the nonvoting stock being owned by 20 investors—members of the Ball and VanderSloot families, current and former employees, and investors in Taiwan.[1] In 1998, VanderSloot bought out business partner Roger Ball for $132 million. In an interview with Dan Popkey, VanderSloot said that the buyout came after the Balls tried to fire him.[1] When Melaleuca’s sales flattened that year, VanderSloot 'discovered that some senior directors were living off their residuals and doing little in the way of recruitment.' This resulted in 'a new policy that reduced payments to those who didn't either bring in new converts or help others do so.' The company's revenues subsequently grew at a compound annual rate of 12 percent.[2]"

"Melaleuca grew quickly;[6][7][8] Inc. magazine included Melaleuca on its Inc. 500 list of the fastest-growing private companies in the United States every year from 1990 to 1994 before inducting the company into its Hall of Fame in 1994.[9][10] According to the Puerto Rican business magazine Caribbean Business, Melaleuca's growth continued after the hall of fame induction and it was 'one of the fastest- growing businesses in the U.S.,' with sales increasing 3,200 percent between 1989 and 2004.[6] Melaleuca reported gross sales in excess of one billion dollars in 2011.[11] Melaleuca operates internationally, with U.S. operations centered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, and Knoxville, Tennessee.[12] In 2004, 25 percent of company revenue came from Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. The company reported in 2005 that one in 60 Taiwanese households purchased its products monthly.[13][2] Melaleuca's 2012 revenue was $1.13 billion, a 9.2 percent increase over 2011.[14]"

"VanderSloot created a research and development department that evolved into a 20-person staff, including three PhD chemists.[2][15] The company's current portfolio consists of more than 350 products.[16][17]"

"Business model" "Melaleuca distributors can earn commissions and bonuses based on sales to end consumers.[21] ] According to Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesman, Melaleuca had 800,000 customers for its household and nutritional products Template:As of. Roughly 37 percent were also part of the company's sales force of independent contractors, referred to as “marketing executives', and about 90 percent of the sales force averaged less than $2,100 in annual income from Melaleuca.[1] According to Laura Onstot of the Seattle Weekly News, a 2006 company report stated that the average annual income for 72 percent of Melaleuca's marketing executives Template:As of $90. VanderSloot estimates that roughly 190,000 marketing executives 'earn a check from Melaleuca each month', 20,000 of whom 'make their primary living through the company'. As executives recruit, their title changes and they make more money.[26]"

"According to Melaleuca, 62.2 percent of the company's monthly sales come from customers who are not and have never been distributors and another 23 percent who were once distributors continue to buy the product for personal use.[21]"

"As of 2006, 95 percent of households that bought Melaleuca products in any given month repurchased products the next month.[18][6] According to Melaleuca, 62.2 percent of the company's monthly sales come from customers who are not and have never been distributors and another 23 percent who were once distributors continue to buy the product for personal use.[19]"

"Melaleuca distributors can earn commissions and bonuses based on sales to end consumers.[19] VanderSloot says that the company has a 'business model for those people who want to supplement their income.'[20] According to Dan Popkey of the Idaho Statesman, Melaleuca had 800,000 customers for its household and nutritional products as of 2011. Roughly 37 percent were also part of the company's sales force of independent contractors, referred to as “marketing executives,' and about 90 percent of the sales force averaged less than $2,100 in annual income from Melaleuca.[1] According to Laura Onstot of the Seattle Weekly News, a 2006 company report stated that the average annual income for 72 percent of Melaleuca's marketing executives was $90. VanderSloot estimates that roughly 190,000 marketing executives 'earn a check from Melaleuca each month,' 20,000 of whom 'make their primary living through the company.' As executives recruit, their title changes and they make more money.[21]"

"Memberships" "Melaleuca is a member of the United States Direct Selling Association (DSA),[22] a trade association. In 2008, VanderSloot began a three-year term as one of the eight members of the DSA's board of directors.[23] In December 2009 VanderSloot and his wife contributed $10,000 to the DSA’s political action committee (PAC).[24]"

"Investigations" "Between 1991 and 1997, Melaleuca was investigated by Michigan regulators, the Idaho attorney general's office, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for various marketing violations. In 1991 Melaleuca received a cease-and-desist order for violating Michigan’s anti–pyramid scheme laws.[25] 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.”[26][3][5][27][28][29] Subsequently, according to Adam Yeomans of the Orlando Sentinel, 'officials in both states cleared the company's marketing plan and blamed 'renegade' distributors for any problems.'[30] In its voluntary agreement, the Idaho Attorney General found the company's policies and product catalog did not violate Idaho law, but that 'certain independent marketing executives of Melaleuca... failed to comply with certain policies of Melaleuca, and that the actions of these independent marketing executives are in violation of Idaho law.'[29] In 1997, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sent Melaleuca a warning letter for 'false and misleading' claims about two of its supplements.[26][5][27][31][32]"

GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That scheme won't work. Sales data have been interspersed in the sections on history and the business model; some of the material that is currently in the article has been surreptitiously omitted; the history section refers to the company's current product portfolio (which is contemporary rather than historical); and the section titled investigations includes the FDA warning letter, which was not an investigation but rather a notice of a confirmed violation. Most importantly, the company's multi-level marketing model is mentioned in the history section but the business model section mentions nothing about multi-level marketing but rather describes sales data and distributor revenues. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was going to post along similar lines. It's particularly problematic to have a section headed "business model" that doesn't mention MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm. I'd like to get more editors weighing in on this. I honestly think the section is too long and should be broken up for ease of editing and ease of understanding. I wouldn't have any objection to mentioning MLM under "Business model," but it is not in there at all right now, so that's why it is not in the sample I provided: You could actually add it (with sources) after a rearrangement is made, as above. So far as sales figures go, they are also part of "History," because history does not stop at any given point, but continues up to the present; also, you could fixate them with a date; that is, "As of 2012, sales were . . . " And, if an editor doesn't like any given title, as "Investigations," he or she can suggest another one. Our regular contributors to this article are silent right now, so I'll send out a WP:Request for Comment. Thanks to both of the commenters so far. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think sub-headers will inherently cause controversy and would be better avoided in this situation. There's no way to word every header in a way that will please every editor.  Andrew327 18:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrewman327, you are so right! An editor suggested that the matter be discussed here, but I can see the idea is going over like cold pancakes. As you can see, the entire Wikipedia world is really eager to sit down and play with us, because we are such jolly company. GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

VanderSloot's second wife
The Idaho State Journal is listing Vivian VanderSloot as his second wife, not third. "Cassie is the youngest child of Frank's second wife, Vivian VanderSloot." HtownCat (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There's no debating that the original version published June 3, 2012 stated that Vivian was Frank's third wife ("...Frank's third wife, Vivian VanderSloot"). What a stunning coincidence that you would think to check this detail again and find that the article had been altered just a few days ago (it shows a modification date of Feb 13, 2013). Interesting too that the author did not provide a footnote explaining what he had altered in the article. Journalists don't typically make random changes to their work 8-months post-publication without acknowledging it in a "corrections" footnote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually - they often do just that. Since we use what the source currently says, there should be no problem from your end. Collect (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Was that speculation or based on something tangible? My experience is that reputable news sources don't do it; a print version can't be changed post publication so they announce it if and when amendments are made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This represents a strong argument that your supposition was incorrect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been done by the New York Times, inter alia. Sorry to disillisusion you on the infallibility of reporters, but often corrections are made and often without much of a notice at all.  In the case at hand, I take it you are not disputing the current version of the article - and that is what Wikipedia uses.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Corrections are standard practice among news outlets as diverse as the Philadelphia Inquirer,New York Post, Wall Street Journal,USA Today,LA Times, Chicago Tribune,Washington Post,New York TimesHuffington Post,Slate,and Reuters. Rhode Island Red's response fails to assume good faith.  Andrew327 07:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You managed to miss my point completely; did you even read what I wrote above? Corrections are standard practice in journalism; failing to clearly indicate that a correction has been made to an article (8 months after publication) is not a standard practice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was making two points: 1. it is standard practice to use the most recently updated version of an article, and 2. you are not assuming good faith. I have no idea what this media outlet's policies are regarding edits or why the change was made, but I see the author's e-mail address at the top of the article.  You should ask her [mailto:modonnell@journalnet.com here]. Andrew327 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with faith, good or bad, nor am I assuming anything. I'm stating a basic fact -- it is standard practice in journalism that when one alters an article post-publication, the amendment is always openly acknowledged; it is never made surreptitiously as it was in this case. If Vandersloot called up the author and requested that the change be made, that's fine; but the change should have been acknowledged in a correction/erratum statement, as is the standard practice among every last one of the sources you cited above (inadvertently proving my point). Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not debating that the original version stated Vivian as "third wife," nor about the credibility of publications correcting their articles. Just pointing out new information. I can't find any other information on Vivian VanderSloot, so unless someone else has another source I think we should either work with this article and switch from "third" to "second" or throw out the article and delete that sentence. HtownCat (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm changing the article to reflect what the Source now says. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

[Content at this location was deleted by another user. Andrew327 19:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)]

The phrase "his wife of 17 years" was deleted. I think that phrasing flows better than splitting it into two sentences like it is now. Why the change? Andrew327 20:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Phrasing it that way would make no sense. Encyclopedias report enduring facts. It is an enduring fact that Vandersloot married his latest wife in 1995, and that is actually the exact phrasing used by the source that reported the fact. It is a temporally fleeting statement to refer to "his wife of 17 years". Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

minthreadsleft
Given that threads on this talk page tend to become walls of text, would anyone object to reducing the minimum number of threads that the archiving bot will leave on the page? The current setting will always leave at least five threads, which is fine for most pages, but dropping it to three would make it easier to keep up with current discussions without having to scroll through thousands of words first. Andrew327 23:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC) [Edited by Andrew327 ]
 * At first glance I did not agree, believing that the solution would be for people to keep their comments SHORT. Sometimes a less-than-brand-new-thread has really pertinent material that should still be considered when editing. The alternative would be to look through the old threads and (maybe) resurrect them. Also: Editors should not make personal remarks and if anybody finds one, he or she should hide it by one of the approved methods. Nevertheless, if Andrewman327 would like to attempt his scheme for, oh, two months, subject to reconsideration at that time, why not? GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:58, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why the archiving setting for this article should be different from that for any other WP article. Scrolling is easier than rummaging through archives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps best to consult WP:ARCHIVE. We can do whatever we like -- but it surely can't be worth arguing over, and so perhaps best to follow the guidelines given there. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My suggestion meets the requirements of WP:ARCHIVE and the current settings here have been changed from the default anyway in order to archive more threads (not sure who did it). And if editors want to scroll instead of search, I could change the archive size setting.  My talk page has archives three times the size of the ones here.  In general, I was looking for consensus and found none, so I'll let it be.  Andrew327 00:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Low-grade promotional source"
I'm not sure what source you are talking about in this edit. Is it the Caribbean Business? GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Is it not obvious? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We've already been through this and decided that Caribbean Business is a reliable source. Are you saying the content about "seven referral generations" should be deleted too?  Also, per your edit summary, what failed verification?  The 95 percent figure is in sources that are currently cited in the BLP.  Finally, when you revert, make sure you do not revert Wikignome page improvements, as you did when you reverted my AWB citation cleanup.  Andrew327 15:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The source that was removed was the Idaho Business Review. I've looked at the article in question and at the website for the "Review", and I don't see a problem with it.  This sort of source doesn't seem ideal -- they're heavily dependent on businesses for advertising and in general seem to exist for the purpose of "boosting" business -- but at least for this particular article I think there's no problem with WP:RS, in relation to the use being made of it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Seems we might be about two different sources. George was referring to Caribbean Business, not IBR. The problematic text that was inserted based on that source was:


 * "In 2006, Puerto Rican business magazine Caribbean Business, dubbed it "one of the fastest-growing businesses in the U.S., with sales increasing an astounding 3,200 percent" between 1989 and 2004"


 * And it was simply changed to this:


 * "According to a 2006 article in the Puerto Rican business magazine Caribbean Business, Melaleuca became "one of the fastest-growing businesses in the U.S.," with sales increasing 3,200 percent between 1989 and 2004."


 * The magazine is a low grade business promo source -- it has no reputation for fact checking and accuracy as with a proper news/journalism source. The article in question appears to be a promotional supplement/advertorial and features an interview with an independent Melaleuca distributor (of no repute) in Puerto Rico; he is not even a representative/employee of the company and is not an authoritative source. The article doesn't even mention Vandersloot and as such is only related tangentially to this BLP. The Melaleuca section of the WP article is already peppered with sales figures and statements about Melaleuca's growth, to the point where it reads like superfluous padding and is a distraction. There's really no need to add this padding with vanity terms like "astounding" coming from such a transparently weak source. There's certainly no need to edit war for restoration of this obviously weak throwaway quote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears that George was mistaken in his guess as to which source was in question. The edit he links to is one where you are removing the IBR source.  I think we're off to a bad start here and I suggest a pause and re-wind.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably a good idea. With respect to the Caribbean Business article, my main point was that the "astounding" part of the quote was silly given the caliber of the source as a whole. The section on revenue was fragmented and redundant so I made a few edits to try and consolidate the information. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your edits messed up the flow and blanked large parts of the section. You're being inconsistent with your application of guidelines, given that you removed information about the company having a 95% resale rate while retaining minor information about a 1998 policy change and other similarly small aspects.  You deride Caribbean Business without removing its line about referral generations.  I was hopeful that we were approaching consensus on this article.  I'm not married to any particular wording, but your inconsistent application of rules, refusal to discuss major changes on talk, and reverting anybody who posts things you don't like amounts to ownership.  This behavior has to change.  Andrew327 02:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Andrewman327. I am loath to comment on another editor's actions in a Talk Page that is supposed to improve the article, but Rhode Island Red's remarks in this particular thread are really threatening to the project. As for his snide remark above, "Is it not obvious?", well, no, it was not obvious or I wouldn't have asked the question. As for "ownership," once again I agree with A327, but unfortunately there is not much we can do about this matter because:


 * "While it may be easy to identify ownership issues, it is far more difficult to resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the editors involved. It is always helpful to remember to stay calm, assume good faith, and remain civil. Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack. Address the editor in a civil manner, with the same amount of respect you would expect. Often, editors accused of ownership may not even realize it, so it is important to assume good faith. Some editors may think they are protecting the article from vandalism, and may respond to any changes with hostility. Others may try to promote their own point of view, failing to recognize the importance of the neutrality policy."
 * I will support A327's attempts to rectify any damage done by RIR's edits because I basically trust A327's bona fides.GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

George and Andrewman, kindly stop the histrionics about ownership. With respect to the Caribbean Business article, the minor point raised was that it was not appropriate to include the description of revenue growth as "astounding". It's such a simple straightforward point, and rather than simply acknowledge it, you fly off the handle with off-base accusations of WP:OWN. Secondly a large portion of the section on Melaleuca was poorly organized/poorly written. It included multiple references to the company's revenue growth scattered throughout in a haphazard manner. It did not flow well, was redundant, and was digressing away from the topic of the BLP -- it looked like it was written by committee and was in dire need of an overhaul, as has been pointed out by several editors during recent reviews of the article. The gist of Melaleuca was that it grew fast -- but that doesn't need to be stated 7 different ways in the BLP. You have no basis for screaming about ownership every time I choose to edit the article -- doing so constitutes harassment and it won't be tolerated. If you have a comment about content to make, then make it and keep the character assassination to yourselves. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The problem was not so much a difference of opinion over simple editing, but the incipient boiling-up of an edit war beginning at 16:06 p.m. 15 March with this bold reversion by Rhode Island Red in which he claimed that a source had "failed verification." There were two fixes made by AM327, followed by another RIR reversion at 20:13 15 March in which Red gave as his Edit Summary "Avoid WP:UNDUE on this low grade promotional source; use Talk if necessary." Acceding to that request, AM327 asked on the Talk Page at 15:53 16 March, among other things, exactly "what failed verification?" followed six minutes later by  adding back "reliably sourced comment," an addition that RIR reverted just about four hours later, summarizing his edit as "improper synthesis and inaccurate paraphrasing of source; the detail is not even relevant to the BLP." He made three other edits thereafter. Fortunately the edit war ended right there, but if AM327 wants to present any proposed changes on this talk page, I believe we should certainly consider them, and I fault RIR for not going to the Talk Page himself — instead of insisting that others should do so — after his bold edits were reversed. GeorgeLouis (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Idaho ballot measures
This citation seems to go to the wrong story. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It alludes to the cited issue in passing, but it fails verification for how it is being used in the article. I'm on my phone so I won't change anything until tomorrow (too easy to mess things up). Andrew327 23:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

[Content at this location removed. Andrew327 05:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)]

Criticism from journalists
Under "LGBT issues," there was a sentence stating "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists, commentators, gay rights advocates, and the Human Rights Campaign." To my knowledge, none of the sources stated anything like "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists, commentators, gay rights advocates, and the Human Rights Campaign," but my attention was only on sentences reference to journalists, so I deleted that word and will leave it to other editors to delete the others. I respectfully ask any editor to point to a source which states that "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists." I couldn't find any in the list of sources attached to the paragraph, but, then, maybe I missed it. Also, please don't revert to "journalists" until you can come up with a source that uses that word in connection with people who have criticized VanderSloot on "certain issues of interest to the gay community."GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Some of the people named in the third paragraph of the LGBT section are in fact journalists. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But you miss the point. WP:Synthesis says, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You're taking the point to such an extreme that it can only be described as pedantry. There's no source that describes VS as a "rancher" or "political campaign financier" -- and yet the sources make it clear that he is in fact these things, by noting his contributions to campaigns and his ownership of ranches.  WP:LEAD says "summarise" -- so we can summarise.  The fact that you're making the point only in connection with "journalists" is curious and suggests an agenda of some sort.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On doing a bit of reading, it becomes clear that the Greenwald source, for one, uses the word repeatedly in connection with the people we're talking about. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Nomo, I resent your personal attack and have removed it. As to your cogent point 'There's no source that describes VS as a "rancher" or "political campaign financier," ' neither of these terms is contentious (they are accepted by WP:consensus), but the assertion that "VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists" is contentious and therefore must be subject to the "rule" not to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." In reconsidering the matter, I now believe the opening sentence of this section is overbroad and does not do justice to the subject matter because it draws attention to the adverse criticism rather than to the actual activity of VanderSloot, who is the subject of this article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's anything at all contentious in describing Zuckerman (for example) as a journalist. I really don't get it.  What would make it contentious is the existence of a source that asserts he is not a journalist -- but what we have instead is a source that says he is a journalist.  (Not to mention the fact that he works as one for a newspaper.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

LGBT issues edit
I've made some changes to the “LGBT issues” section of the article. Here's what I changed – and some explanations of why I thought the changes needed to be made.

In the section's second paragraph, I removed “VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign.” I feel that this rather misrepresents what the Human Rights Campaign said. Yes, they were critical of the things described in this paragraph – but to say that “VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign” implies that these criticisms came in direct response to “VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation”, when in fact the comments were in response VanderSloot's role as Finance Chair in Mitt Romney's campaign. Looking over what the Human Rights Campaign actually said (http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/entry/hrc-calls-on-romney-campaign-to-fire-virulently-anti-gay-national-finance-c), I also notice that their criticisms were more wide-ranging than those outlined in this paragraph, and also took in VanderSloot's actions with regard to the Zuckerman articles in the Idaho Falls Post Register. The Human Rights Campaign's criticisms, then, actually relate to the entirety of the “LGBT issues” section, and not just to the issues highlighted by this particular paragraph. I therefore think that they are better placed in the section's opening sentence (which the Human Rights Campaign sentence in any case came very close to repeating), which deals with all of the criticisms VanderSloot has drawn, in relation to LGBT issues. I've therefore removed “VanderSloot's efforts and his wife's donation drew criticism from the Human Rights Campaign”, and changed “gay rights advocates” to “gay rights and human rights advocates”, in the “LGBT issues” section's opening paragraph – as well as adding a supporting citation of the Human Rights Campaign source to that opening paragraph.

The third paragraph of the “LGBT issues” section was repetitive. Its opening sentence stated that Vandersloot “issued two critical statements regarding a series of investigative articles by journalist Peter Zuckerman”, only for the second sentence to state that VanderSloot “took out two full-page advertisements in the Post Register in which he challenged aspects of Zuckerman's stories”. These two sentences are trying to give basically the same information, and I've therefore combined them into one sentence, which gives all the information without repetition.

I also thought there were problems in the third paragraph in that it didn't clearly explain why VanderSloot's advertisements had drawn criticism in the media. The controversy was caused by the fact that the advertisements were perceived as outing Zuckerman, allegedly publicly revealing his sexual orientation without his permission. Yet the paragraph only mentioned outing in passing, right at the end. I feel that the cause of the controversy needs to be established, in this paragraph, as soon as possible, and so have changed the second sentence so that it clearly states that the alleged outing was the cause of the media controversy. I also moved the list of critical media commentators from the “LGBT issues” section's penultimate paragraph to here, so that there is no vagueness about which commentators and publications the media controversy involved.

Much of the third paragraph was taken up with direct quotes from VanderSloot's advertisements – and I felt that this more detailed material was getting in the way of the general overview that is initially required before the reader can start to make sense of this kind of detail. I've therefore moved this material into a new paragraph, that follows the paragraph giving the initial overview, and combined it with the following paragraph, that deals with the details of the second advertisement – in this way creating a paragraph devoted solely to explaining the full details of what the advertisements said.

I didn't change much in the section's final two paragraphs – just the moving of the list of critical commentators to an earlier paragraph, that I've explained above, and some minor copyediting. Phrenology (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a good edit. I was set to be concerned about it, given the removal of ~1000 characters -- but in fact it's very well considered (and justified here by an excellent explanation).  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see pros and cons with the change and I see it as a good starting point. It flows better than it did before, but I'm concerned about the use of snippets of quotes.  For example, this sentence is synthesis and POV: Although the advertisement also stated that "it would be very unfair for anyone to conclude that is what is behind Zuckerman’s motives," an analysis by Glenn Greenwald in Salon asserted that "the ad absurdly sought to repudiate the very 'speculation' about Zuckerman which it had just amplified.".  I removed the text "human rights advocates" from the first sentence since it's not how people refer to HRC (I checked HRC's About Us page, its Wikipedia article, and Google News).  Andrew327 09:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Going to have to hit the revert button on that one Andrew. It would be literally impossible for someone to refer to the HRC without referring to "human rights", since the organization is called the "Human Rights Campaign". Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe it is rather Rhode Island Red that is bordering on faulty logic here. Wikipedia does not automatically characterize a group per name or other self-description, but rather goes by how a group is commonly referred to in reliable sources. Like Andrewman says, the Wikipedia entry on HRC describes it as "the largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization". I checked New York Times which describes the organization thus: "Human Rights Campaign, a gay advocacy group". Gay rights may be seen as a subset of human rights (allthough gay marriages is very far from universally accepted as a human right); but the more specific term (gay rights) is what appears most relevant here and the one that is commonly used by reliable sources. Iselilja (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. To make it abundantly clear, here is how even more sources describe HRC, note that nobody uses the language "human rights group":
 * Wikipedia: "the largest LGBT equality-rights advocacy group and political lobbying organization in the United States."
 * HRC (obviously SPS): "the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans".
 * New York Times: "a national organization that promotes equal rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people".
 * Washington Post: "a gay advocacy group".
 * Huffington Post: "The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) rights group..."
 * Detroit Free Press: "a national gay rights group".
 * Business Insider: "a group which lobbies for lesbian and gay rights"
 * Andrew327 17:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh goody! I'm going to nail you to the cross for invoking that line of reasoning the next time you try to argue the contradictory position that Melaleuca shouldn't be referred to as an MLM. Your argument of convenience over this minor detail about human rights could (and should) come back to bite you for its logical inconsistency±. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Threatening to nail somebody to the cross is pretty much the definition of incivility and I do not appreciate it. Not one reliable source that I can find refers to HRC as a "human rights advocate".  I welcome logical and factual arguments supporting changing HRC's apposition, but please avoid making threats.  Andrew327 23:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * (Off-topic talk removed) . GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I would express sympathy that you lack the wherewithal to distinguish such a common metaphor from a threat, but it's obvious that you know the difference and are just being histrionic for dramatic effect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is that you resorted to personal attacks instead of providing sources to back up your point. I'm happy to admit when I'm wrong, which happens regularly.  Andrew327 20:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence of LGBT section
The opening sentence of the LGBT section is problematic because: (1) It is WP:contentious, its wording having been challenged many times on these Talk Pages. (2) It is redolent of WP:citation overkill. (3) It stresses an entirely adverse reaction to an event in a WP:BLP, casting this man in a very negative light. Therefore, I am deleting it. The sentence is as follows:

"VanderSloot's stances on certain issues of interest to the gay community have drawn criticism from journalists, commentators, gay rights advocates, and the Human Rights Campaign.[13][52][92][121][122][123][124][125]"

Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2013 (CDT)

Errors
The following paragraph contains so many errors that I've removed it and retitled the section:

"According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation and copyright infringement lawsuits, as well as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), against five sources who have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.[52][92][124][132][138][139][140]"

These are the errors:

Greenwald in Salon: No mention of SLAPP but he mentioned VDS's "threats to bring patently frivolous lawsuits against his political critics" "threats of expensive defamation actions" "suppressing legitimate political speech by threatening or even commencing lawsuits against even the most obscure critics."

Maddow: No mention of SLAPP. Only mention of "lawsuit" in the transcript related to copyright infringement.

Bodnar: No mention of SLAPP. Wrote that 'Salon.com's Glenn Greenwald said VanderSloot threatens "patently frivolous lawsuits," and in the last month alone, has forced journalists to take down critical articles.'

LGBT Weekly: No mention of SLAPP or "defamation."

Salon: This is a primary source, not WP:RS, a letter from ML attorney to Jody May-Chang which does not mention SLAPP.

Trevor in LGBT Weekly: "risks triggering liability under 'anti-SLAPP' statutes" but does not say that ML has actually engaged in the practice.

Chris Frates in National Journal: No mention of SLAPP. but quotes Salon.com that VDS "has used his fortune to bludgeon journalists and critics into removing articles critical of him and his business by threatening defamation lawsuits."

GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I made some minor adjustments to assuage George's concerns. Not sure why we have to go through this every few weeks -- you read the article, identify something you don't like, conjure it into a "huge set of errors", and delete instead of fix.  Not constructive.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at this, but I could not detect adjustments between 18:20 9 April 2013 and 19:48 on the same day. Can you elucidate? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The current first paragraph in this section is still problematic. The first sentence is written in a way that suggests that Rachel Maddow, Salon, the National Journal, and the EFF all call the lawsuits "patently frivolous," which is incorrect (only Salon uses that phrase). I suggest moving "patently frivolous" altogether as it conveys the biased opinion of one writer. Additionally, I believe GeorgeLouis' problem with the sources is that some of them do not actually mention the lawsuits or threats of suits. In light of this being a WP:BLP, perhaps we should remove the paragraph until we can come to consensus. HtownCat (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If there are sources that don't mention lawsuits, then remove the sources. But there are sources that do talk about VS's lawsuits, so there's no reason to remove the paragraph.  VS has in fact (according to at least some of these sources) filed lawsuits against people who have criticised him.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should strive for consensus and that bad sources should be removed, so I rewrote the paragraph using what (to me) seemed like the only acceptable source of the lot—Greenwald, though he is stating his opinion and not quoting anybody else who feels the way he does. (The other sources don't mention defamation or rely simply on what Greenwald said.) Other WP editors can add what they like, with sources, until we have something we can all agree on. GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The way the section is currently written, it strings together snippets of articles in a way that is designed to make a specific statement. There are issues with synth and NPOV that need to be corrected.  Andrew327 08:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What "specific statement" do you perceive, and how would you suggest amending the paragraph? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Attention is called to the WP:BLP policy, which states:
 * "Contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, 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.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."
 * GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The actual problem here, though, is repeated removal of material on the basis that it is "poorly sourced" without any indication of what the problems of the text are. You'll note that I've made changes each time I restore the material; when you then simply remove it again without saying what is wrong with the new version, it's impossible to know what further concerns you have.  This time, then, I've simply reverted without changes -- how would I know what sort of changes you think are necessary?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Critique
In response to the final paragraph of the above section, I present this critique of the most recent version:


 * "Vandersloot and his attorneys requested that Rachel Maddow, after she broadcast a show about his alleged outing of Zuckerman, remove the web-based version of the show; he also objected when she then publicised that request on her show."

Source cited: Rachel Maddow show transcript, May 15, 2012.

Problem: Any action by "Vandersloot and his attorneys" would have had to occur after the show had aired and so could not have been reported during the show, and indeed the transcript does not use the word "attorney" one single time!
 * "His attorneys sent 'threatening letters' to Forbes, Mother Jones and Salon insisting that they remove articles on his public statements regarding gay rights and Melaleuca's business practices; he had previously used similar tactics regarding local political blogs in Idaho."

Sources cited: Glenn Greenwald article in Salon, February 17, 2012, and Chris Frates article in National Journal, February 27, 2012.

Problems:

(1) The sentence apparently referenced stated only that "Melaleuca attorneys are ratcheting up their efforts to protect what they consider the company’s squeaky clean public image. They do this with threatening letters demanding that news organizations and bloggers scrub their websites of information they consider damaging or face legal action." Linking this sentence to Forbes, Mother Jones and Salon is WP:Synthesis. Nevertheless, it is possible some of the contentions from Greenwald's column could be salvaged, and I invite anybody to do so if they can. In the meantime the sentence must be removed as violative of WP:BLP, because the source does not say what the proposed ML article would say.

(2) Neither Greenwald nor Frates used the phrase "similar tactics." Its use is WP:Synthesis.

(3) Frates, writing an opinion column in the National Journal, did no original reporting but simply repeated some of the comments made by Greenwald and Maddow. Therefore, Frates cannot be a reliable source for anything other than his own opinion. What's more, like Maddow, Frates did not use the word "attorney" one single time. GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your first point is nonsensical; the transcript you linked to relates a show that refers also to a previous show. As for the second one, the problems are surely within your competence to address via minor editing; the fact that you have instead chosen to delete repeatedly is getting me to think in terms of WP:TE.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is also the issue that Rachel Maddow is a primary source for information related to the Maddow/VdS conflict. Are there independent reliable sources that have covered her accusations? Otherwise, 1) one may question the notability of her claim 2) her side of the story should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice, but rather in the form of "Maddow claimed..." "Maddow accused VdS" or similar. Iselilja (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "Notability" (though that term is slightly misplaced here, as we are not talking about creating a separate article): Greenwald refers generally to the show in question, . And a story covering Vandersloot's response to these assertions as a whole, .  That latter one also helps substantiate the details, so that it isn't just "Maddow said".   Others are of course welcome to do their own searches.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * More "local" coverage: . Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there have been personal slams made by one of the editors writing above, I will ignore them for the time being and simply watch others improve the article, bit by bit. I will admit that I was wrong in some of my interpretation of Maddow's broadcast (the transcript did speak about "lawyers," after all, but not about "attorneys"). My bad. I hope to see more positive fixes to the article. Thanks to everybody for taking a look. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Copied from BLP page
This subsection is copied from here In regard to the above article, it would be helpful if somebody would remove two contentious sentences from the article, here, while their use is being debated on the talk page, here. An intervention might help avoid another in a series of edit wars, which have bedeviled this article. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * George's post merely exacerbates the problem he has been creating, in asserting that the sentences need to be deleted instead of fixed. George perceives certain problems -- but instead of fixing them he simply deletes.  I have been trying to address his concerns, though it was difficult as he declined to specify what they were.  Now that he has done so, the constructive path forward is to call for other editors to help fix the sentences.  (Whether fixing is in fact necessary depends on the cogency of his talk-page points...)  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I see no problems with the sources in question - MSNBC and National Journal are, almost by definition, reliable sources. polarscribe (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

His attorneys sent "threatening letters" to 'Forbes', 'Mother Jones' and 'Salon' insisting that they remove articles on his public statements regarding gay rights and Melaleuca's business practices; he had previously used similar tactics regarding local political blogs in Idaho seems to be a statement of opinion - and thus should not be in Wikipedia's voice but should be attributed to those holding those opinions. Collect (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC) BTW, MSNBC may be reliable for news content cited for facts, but opinion shows for some odd reason deal with opinions - thus are not reliable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Collect (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is an undisputed fact that such letters were sent. See this article on Salon.com. polarscribe (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * And that they were "threatening"? And that he had used "similar tactics"?  Seems like opinion there -- the "fact" is that VdS' attorneys sent letters asking for retractions and removal from internet archives of articles theat they objected to.  The rest is "opinion" and should not be made in Wikipedia's voice.   Greenwald's "article" on Salon is so obviously an opinion piece that one can not use it as a "fact" source for "threats" - especially since one might well consider any letter from any lawyer on any topic to be a "threat."  Cheers -- but opinions must be cited as opinion and not asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice.  Collect (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not opinion that a letter which threatens legal action is "threatening." If the letter says "do something or we'll file a lawsuit," that is, objectively, a "threatening letter." There is no opinion in that statement. Either way, the words in question are in quotation marks, which makes it clear that those were Greenwald's words. And yes, if letters making legal threats were sent to one organization, and letters making similar legal threats were sent to another organization, then that is a similar action. I suppose you could object to the very-mildly-loaded word "tactics," but I already edited that word out of the article as part of a rewrite. polarscribe (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at the article, and thanks to most of you above for keeping personal remarks out of the equation. The more people with the article on their watch lists, the better. Your friend in Wikidom, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Maddow text
You can read the transcript of the Rachel Maddow show by going to http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/vp/47302840#47302840 and clicking on the word "Transcript" at the bottom right of the window showing Rachel. The word is a popup. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very helpful. It allows us to write the sentence properly.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I also found it useful to copy the text and paste it to a word processor, then add some paragraphing to make it easier to read. GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of "numerous"
It generally means "a great many" and therefore is the type of claim which suggests at least a score of writers -- so far I can not find them, therefore "a number of" is far more accurate. Definfing 5 to be a "great many" is ludicrous, for example. "Numerous" as a claim would need a specific reliable source in a BLP. Collect (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's fine, Collect, no worries. But it's puzzling that you also removed "journalists", particularly when your edit summary expressed agreement with the point I made when restoring it.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I'm OK with any of the versions of the intro to that sentence that have been used today. Andrew327 14:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Um -- the "commentators" are, generally speaking, "journalists" - using both descriptors seemed to imply a great many more such than have been presented. Your choice.  Not both.  Collect (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)