Talk:IAC Inc./Archives/2015

Requested move 15 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to IAC (company). The consensus is clearly to move away from the previous name. The two options are InterActiveCorp and IAC (company), and the latter appears to have more support than the former. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

IAC/InterActiveCorp → InterActiveCorp – WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE/WP:SUBPAGE/MOS:SLASH/WP:NATURALDAB -- use natural disambiguation which is shorter for conciseness but just as precise as needed; which does not look like a subpage causing subpage problems with associated talk pages and to an internet URL aware public; and slashes should be avoided when possible. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose - Looking at the company's website, it appears that it now uses "IAC Inc." as its name. "InterActiveCorp" appears to have been dropped. BMK (talk) 08:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * So would we go back to IAC (company) (the former name of this article that was in use before 2014) ? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be preferable. BMK (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be acceptable under SUBPAGE/SLASH/PRECISE/CONCISE -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * See below. BMK (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - cant see any evidence that the company uses InterActiveCorp as either a name or brand name (or actually uses IAC Inc), most the branding appears to use just "IAC" so perhaps we should go with IAC (company). MilborneOne (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That is also acceptable to me. I am the nominator -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * I dont have a view on the article name but "/" looks wrong but the company website uses "IAC/InterActiveCorp" as the company name in a number of places  and according to the tax form 10K  and such like the legal name appears to be "IAC/InterActiveCorp". MilborneOne (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The links you provide date from 2012 and are probably outdated. BMK (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, color me confused. The Wall Street-oriented website, such as Bloomberg, all still give "IAC/InterActiveCorp" as the company's name. There are a few stories on Google News that come up after a search on "IAC Inc.", but not many, and some of them date from quite early (2007) in one case.  Given this, I'm entirely unsure what the company's real name is at this point. BMK (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Per my opening rationale, "InterActiveCorp" makes everything simple, it eliminates the weird slash and double-naming, naturally disambiguates away from IAC, and is shorter. So I think we're really down to two simple choices "IAC (company)" and "InterActiveCorp" as the current title has problems with slash guidelines, and redundancy (PRECISE/CONCISE) -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if it makes it "simple" if it doesn't accurately represent either the real, official name of the compnay, or the common name. I haven't see any evidence that it represents either. BMK (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Most of the 2013 sources used for the "Sacco incident" section in the article call the company "IAC", a couple call it "InterActiveCorp", and none of them call it "IAC/InterActiveCorp". --McGeddon (talk) 08:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "IAC/InterActiveCorp" appears to be the legal name of the company, which is why the Wall Street-oritented sites use it. That doesn't mean we have to use it, though, per WP:COMMONNAME.  I've been looking for something which would say that "IAC Inc." is a d/b/a name, but nothing yet. BMK (talk) 15:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sacco Incident
I re-added the Sacco Incident with an additional reference. It appears to be sufficiently notable to IAC as a company.--Nowa (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? While there are plenty of references to the incident itself in reliable sources, I question whether this is of sufficient long-term notability to the company? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well,it's still getting coverage related to the company. But even if it wasn't I think it's sufficiently notable with 2000+ articles on Google News specifically covering IAC and Sacco.  --Nowa (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * But, the coverage (including the link you shared) is about Sacco having been at IAC at the time of the incident. Are there sources that stipulate that the incident has an enduring effect on IAC (i.e., that would pass WP:UNDUE)? If not, then this seems to be a WP:BLP1E incident, neither relevant to her nor to IAC. JoeSperrazza (talk)
 * I read through WP:undue in more detail, but could not find the “enduring effect” criteria you mentioned. What it did say is “Once it has been presented and discussed in reliable sources, it may be appropriately included.”  IAC'a response to Sacco's tweet meets this criteria as a significant action by IAC. See, for example:
 * Sacco was fired by IAC... The lesson here is clear... (CNN)
 * IAC issued a statement to The Hollywood Reporter saying … (Baxter Bulletin)
 * For the record: This post was updated to include that IAC has...(LA Times)

I'd tend to agree with JoeSperrazza that this is a WP:BLP1E incident and probably doesn't warrant long-term inclusion on this page. Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unclear why Beyond My Ken reverted my change to incorporate the Sacco incident more into the history of the company than continue to have it as its own section. The comments on this Talk page indicated to me that there was a general consensus.Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus here. BMK (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you engage here on the Talk page, then? Your edit comment simply said "better before". What makes the current version better than mine? I tried to incorporate this incident into the history section, which is, to me, where it belongs. I'm not sure why an HR incident warrants 25% of the content on this page. The last person who left a dated, signed comment here who shared your view said so in December 2013, when the incident had just happened.Carlyoconnor (talk) 19:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The incident is signicifant enough to leave in its own section. Burying it in the general history looks a lot like corporate whitewashing.BMK (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing deleting it. I'm suggesting it should have equal weight as other events in the company's history. I will leave your reversion, but I think it merits debate.Carlyoconnor (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Use as a byword
"The incident has since become a byword... for a justified action to immediately end a racist practice." This sentence comes very close to crossing the neutrality line. 99% of readers will agree that racist practices should be ended, so why is the word "justified" even there? Is it because Justine Sacco is only mentioned in this context by people who think that her firing was justified?

Sneaking extra adjectives into sentences about issues is usually a bad idea. It is fine to say that "A number of lawyers and judges asked for Lori Douglas to be disbarred when nude photos of her appeared." It is worse to say that "Lori Douglas has been cited as an example of horribly irresponsible lifestyle choices" even if the critics asking for her disbarrment indeed think she is horribly irresponsible.

When I saw this sentence, I wanted to change it to something like "Those who found Sacco's tweet unacceptable have lended her name to the practice of firing racist employees in general." But when I went searching for other examples of this, the only site I found other than Twitter was the very source in the article. If this biased rant is the only source, notability seems to be unmet too. Connor Behan (talk) 03:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's not why the LA Times source is quoted. It's quoted because it says "she deserved to be fire", which is the point of the sentence.  The article does not "attach her name" to some other event (whatever the hell that means), so your change is a misquote.  Go find a source which says "Sacco's name has become attached to other incidents that are viewed as racist." BMK (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're being pedantic. "Attaching a name", "lending a name", "associating a name" and "using a name" all mean the same thing. The LA Times source (written by someone who thinks Sacco deserved to be fired) is using the phrase "Justine Sacco treatment" to describe a future action he would like to see regarding a mascot. This is obviously attaching her name to a separate issue and a source containing a word for word copy of what I'm trying to say is not needed to recognize this. I am going to keep trying different choices of words to hopefully find a compromise. Feel free to help with that, or delete the sentence for having low notability. Connor Behan (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Pedantic", no, just insisting that a claim is actually supported by the source provided. UNtil you have one, don't change the wqrding in a way that doesn't reflect the source, it will continue tobe removed. BMK (talk) 04:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This discussion highlights how strange it is for this incident to continue to be so prominent on this page. BMK, if you are so invested in the long-term impact of Justine Sacco, perhaps you think she should have her own page? I would argue that's fairly absurd, and that the initial reaction to this incident was a perfect example of the Internet overreacting and social media backlash going unchecked. Instead, you're using one opinion columnist from over a year ago to try and support your point. Try Googling "Justine Sacco" today. The majority of results are all about the overreaction, not the initial "crime". Carlyoconnor (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not "invested" in anything, and your argument that the incident can't be highlighted in this article unless she's notable enough to have her own page is ludicrous, at best, sicne different standards apply. BMK (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That was not my argument at all. My argument is that this entire debate is pretty far afield from anything related to IAC at this point. You're now placing a high degree of importance on what one opinion columnist said about one former employee who has not been with IAC in well over a year, and the entire discussion is about whether or not said employee has become some sort of touchstone for reacting to accusations of racism among a tiny (if that) segment of the population. Do you disagree with that characterization? Carlyoconnor (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The incident happened, it involved an employee of the company at the time -- that she isn't an employee now isn't relevant. The incident had repercussions, and those repercussion remain relevant.  If it was significant when it happened, that significance hasn't changed, and the incident shouldn't be swept under the carpet just because some time has passed. BMK (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, but now you do seem to be making the argument that the incident has intrinsic notability and may very well merit its own page. The lasting significance and repercussions you speak of are independent of who her employer was. Carlyoconnor (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am utterly and totally bored with the circularity and insipidness of your arguments here, so I shall not respond until you, or whoever, makes sense instead of trying to score points. BMK (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, who the hell are you anyway? You've got a handful of edits from 2010-2014 -- enough to qualify you as an autoconfirmed user, and then you come into this discussion to the rescue of Connor Behan.  Carlyoconnor rescuing Connor Behan.  An amazing coincidence, that!  Just like the coincidence that your editing pattern is similar to that used by puppetmasters to get their sleeper sockpuppets into bed.  Then there's your comments here, which appear to me to be on the verge of trolling. Quite interesting. BMK (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry you're not willing to understand the pretty clear argument I've made here, BMK. You have gone on about the lasting significance of Justine Sacco, but every piece of that significance stems from what she said, how the Internet reacted, and how one slanted op-ed piece used her as terminology. None of those things have to do with the content of this page. I assure you, I have no relationship to Connor Behan whatsoever. And if the way you win your Wikipedia wars is to accuse others of trolling, congrats, I have no need to continue here. Ciao. Carlyoconnor (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * When I saw Carlyoconnor's post, I found it funny that our names partially matched, but I've never heard of her before. The section does not exaggerate Sacco's infamy as much as it used to, so I will probably leave the remaining problems (like "went viral") to other editors. Connor Behan (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I incorrectly connected you to Carlyconnor. My question to Carlyoconnor then, given her editing history, is: who's sock are you? BMK (talk) 02:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)