Talk:Southwestern Advantage

Proposed additions and changes
Hello, I am a paid editor, please find my disclosure here

Please find below, some additions and changes that I have proposed.

 1. Request to review "update/addition" for the section, "Lobbying'''". '''

1a. Representatives of Southwestern Advantage testified in support of Michigan House Bill 5726 – an act to prohibit a person from promoting or participating in a pyramid promotion scheme.

1b. The bill was approved by the governor and filed with Secretary of State on August 15, 2018.

 2. Request to review "update/addition" for the section, "Bans From Campuses'''". '''

Southwestern Advantage participants have represented over 1,600 campuses campuses worldwide; over 200 campuses were represented in 2018.

 3. Request to review proposed section named "Awards" 

3a. Southwestern Advantage and its Global Director of Campus Relations, Dr. Ralph Brigham, were selected as recipients of the 2019 Charles F. Kettering Award.

3b. Nashville's Top Workplaces 2016.

3c. Better Business Bureau Torch Award for Ethical Commerce 2015.

3d. BBB Torch Awards recognize ethical business practices and marketplace trust.

3e. Nashville's Top Workplaces 2015.

3f. Nashville's Top Workplaces 2014.

3g. Nashville Business Journal Best In Business Award 2013.

 4. Request to review the the sentence is it is relevant to the subject, ""According to the anti-human trafficking charity Polaris, organizations often send their recruiters to target unemployed young people and college students with promises of high profits" 

Reason: The cited article is about the Travelling Sales Industry and not related with Southwestern Advantage.

Please feel free to ask if you have any questions or concerns, i would be glad to answer them.

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 14:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

User Vandalism
I am removing the following edits from this page via reversion - other IPs have removed edits from User:Log.Base multiple times for false information, misleading use of sources, and misappropriating non-notable information (Disclaimer: I do NOT work for SA, I am a retail employee for Apple). Here is what I will be removing and why, in case this editor continues spamming:


 * "Some police departments and school officials have used official announcements in order to alert citizens of the company's presence after complaints." - Most municipalities have laws regarding permits for door-to-door sales, and part of those laws include normal posting of the acceptance of permits online. This is not in order to alert citizens after complaints.
 * "In 2013, the police department of Lee's Summit, Missouri issued a warning to residents of the company's employees after Internet users circulated warnings on social media of the company's employees being "aggressive" and asking "suspicious questions." The department's statement confirmed that the salespeople were legitimately associated with Southwestern Advantage." - the article cited literally says this was a hoax. This violates numerous Wikipedia policies.


 * "In 2019, the Liverpool Central School District sent out announcements to parents about a student from the company recruiting in the area, triggering an investigation by the New York State Police into the company employee." The following quote is from the article itself: "New York State Police investigated and say the man does, in fact, work for Southwestern Advantage, a company that sells educational resources, and police do not believe he is a danger to the community." This edit is designed to spin up unfounded paranoia.


 * "In 2017, multiple residents of San Diego complained after employees of the company ignored a no soliciting sign and went into the backyard of a resident. Despite the claims, the Chula Vista Police Department noted that although there was no increase in formal complaints about the employees, they had noticed a connection between door-to-door selling and crime." - This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this Wikipedia page, and the article itself says this is based on speculation only.


 * "In 2013, online rumors spread of employees selling in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma being associated with child trafficking after the employees repeatedly asked residents about whether they had children. A spokesperson for the company claimed the question was important for gauge a customer's interest in the product." - The title of the citation is "Online Claims of Human Traffickers Going Door to Door in Ba Unfounded". Again, irrelevant spamming of false information.

If editor attempts to add information again, I will formally report upon reversion. Thank you. MG572W (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you have some concerns about my recent additions to the article. Let me explain.
 * "other IPs have removed edits from User:Log.Base multiple times for false information, misleading use of sources, and misappropriating non-notable information"


 * Who? The only people who have reverted my edits on this page was a random IP, and you, twice. (For watches, the user mentions on their user page that they were previously associated with User:AXR56vcr, but lost the email/password.)
 * Regarding source 1: Please check the two sources cited after this sentence, which are linked here and here. The first source explains that the local police department had to issue a formal announcement regarding the company's presence after rumors started when the company's employees were repeatedly "very aggressive" and "asked suspicious questions." A seargant of the police department called these "worries," which arfter combining with the next source, I grammatically adjusted to "complaints." I get these are not exactly equal, so if you would like to adjust the wording, feel free. The second source cites a school department that issued an announcement after "complaints from some parents." This is in the article, in the very first line, so it should not be hard for you to find.
 * Both sources cited are local news departments, which are reliable per WP:NEWSORG. Both include several interviews with the school department, police department, and company spokespeople. Do you see anyway in which these sources are not reliable or relevant?
 * "Most municipalities have laws regarding permits for door-to-door sales, and part of those laws include normal posting of the acceptance of permits online. This is not in order to alert citizens after complaints."


 * My edit never associated the citizen alerts after complaints with any law. The reason citizens were alerted were due to external complaints/worries, in which citizens were concerned that employees of the company were acting mischevious or odd. This is in both articles cited.
 * "the article cited literally says this was a hoax. This violates numerous Wikipedia policies."


 * You aren't looking at the most recent addition I made to the page. Check this one instead. In the new diff, I updated the wording to make it more clear that the claims were unfounded.
 * "This edit is designed to spin up unfounded paranoia."


 * Again, check the new diff for wording that more clearly reflects this. The new diff explains that the police confirmed his role and that the employee issued a public apology.
 * "This has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this Wikipedia page, and the article itself says this is based on speculation only."


 * How is this not relevant to the subject? The article is about a company which conducts business by recruiting contractors to sell door-to-door. The article explains how an employee of the company disregarded a no soliciting sign and entered the backyard of a resident, which is breaking the law in the area. But, it doesn't end there - this employee then caused other locals in the area to fear on social media. The employee did not simply step on someone's grass or hit a mailbox, they willingly violated the law according to the article. According to the article:
 * ""Yeah the dude came our door too," said Sam Jones. "We have a 'No Soliciting' sign that was clearly ignored. I chalked that up to cultural differences...I do have an acquaintance that bought books from one of these guys. It's legit but that doesn't make it any less annoying.""


 * Could you please explain how a comment from a local resident in a reliable, published newspaper does not constitute factual evidence? Additionally, in the new diff, the following was added:
 * "Despite the claims, the Chula Vista Police Department noted that although there was no increase in formal complaints about the employees."


 * Finally, you mention:
 * "The title of the citation is "Online Claims of Human Traffickers Going Door to Door in Ba Unfounded". Again, irrelevant spamming of false information."


 * Yet again, you are not reading the most recent diff. The new diff clearly explains that the reports are unfounded. How is this "irrelevant spamming of false information"? This is not irrelevant, as local concerns (even if unfounded) of a company being associated with human trafficking are newsworthy. If they are unfounded, this further explains that the company is not associated with trafficking. This is not spamming, I only included this source once, and no other source mentions any connection between the company and human trafficking. Finally, the information is not false - this is published in a local news source.
 * Please let me know if you have any other concerns! Thanks! Log.base (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have plenty of concerns - you are misleadingly quoting articles from 2013, 2017, and 2019, regarding single salesman, in articles that are both not notable, and are overwhelmingly based on unfounded rumors or complaints (and complaining about one salesperson in an employee pool of literally thousands - that makes no sense). Also, one of these articles was regarding a salesman who was an immigrant, to which the neighborhood response screams of racism.

Every salesperson for every company in America could be considered "aggressive" - quoting singular stories about unfounded rumors or situations that clearly do not meet WP:NOTABLE regarding single salesman is not this Wikipedia page is for (though it clearly has other issues with neutrality, like mentioning the Fair Labor Standards Act, even though those laws and regulations do not apply to independent contractors). Is there a section on the Subaru page about how pushy their car salesman are? Of course not.

Furthermore, company pages are not a place to air out personal vendettas about legal selling tactics - none of the articles you cited mentioned anything about anyone being arrested, accused, charged (and "local concerns over human trafficking"? You cannot be serious) - or even operating without the proper permits. Content does not belong on page, for these reasons - along with the reasons previously stated. MG572W (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reaching back out! I have some questions for you, based on your responses!
 * First, in a Wikipedia article that is focused on a single company which only sells door to door, do you think it's wrong to put articles in a "Controversies" section about events that happened when employees sold door-to-door? That's how the business operates. You don't see "a section on the Subaru page about how pushy their car salesman are" because Subaru is a large company which focuses on making and selling cars, not selling educational products at the doorstep of individual people. Without selling door-to-door, Southwestern Advantage would not survive, as this is their business model. Subaru just needs to make cars - this is what they focus on. If you read the page, you'll notice that most the article is devoted to the manufacturing of cars, because this is Subaru's focus, unlike Southwestern Advantage, which focuses on selling door-to-door.


 * Additionally, I'm trying to help this article become more well-sourced, and many of the news articles I found when looking up "Southwestern Advantage" were the articles that I cited in the new "Controversies" section. How do you expect the article to be more well-sourced without using several articles from local news sources? Just because each article covers a small incident in the company, does that not make it newsworthy? The news organizations don't think so, otherwise the articles would not have been published by reputable local news stations. So how do you expect that I find more news sources, if you don't want to use these four news sources that I cited?


 * "none of the articles you cited mentioned anything about anyone being arrested, accused, charged (and "local concerns over human trafficking"? You cannot be serious)"


 * This is wrong? In Lee's Summit, more than one employee was arrested by the police, which I added to the page. And what do you have against "local concerns over human trafficking?" The articles said that this fear grew in the residents after salesmen repeatedly showed up at their doorstep asking personal questions, like if they had children. I later explained after the source that these claims were unfounded. How is that not factually what happened? That is literally what happened, according to the articles.


 * "company pages are not a place to air out personal vendettas about legal selling tactics"


 * What? I never added any content related to the actual legality of Southwestern Advantage's business practices? Also, could you explain how I have a "personal vendetta?" At the top of the Southwestern Advantage page is Template:More sources needed, which suggests that the article needs better sources. I'm working on this page to add sources, not because I have a "personal vendetta." I attempted to find reputable news articles about the company and cite them, which I did. Just because each news article covers a controversy about "one incident" does not mean that they should not be included. Each source only makes up about a sentence in the span of the entire article.


 * Also, right below the section I added covers several "single incidents" of single universities banning the company from selling near their campus. Should these sources be removed, too, because they cover only a few universities? Of course not, because, again, the sources are reliable news sources that share information about the company, just like the sources I found.


 * "Also, one of these articles was regarding a salesman who was an immigrant, to which the neighborhood response screams of racism."


 * This could be a great addition to the section, and could help to provide more information to the reader. There's no need to remove the source just because of possible racism - instead, adding it to the article would provide more sources and a variety of perspectives. Thanks! Log.base (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Interesting how your “variety of perspective” are all negative articles centered around the same subject! I’ve waited a month to see if you were really acting in good faith in “improving the article” - but strangely, you’ve simply reinstated your manipulative, biased edits… and done nothing else to the page! Your edits are sensationalist and biased, and your so-called interpretation of WP:N is patently false.

Forget the Subaru analogy, I’m not going to waste my time on how you’re wrong. Instead, please tell me how two people being arrested - out of the literal dozens of thousands of employees that have worked for the company - meets the newsworthy threshold of Wikipedia? If that were the case, Wiki would need to keep records quoting local news stories of every time someone was arrested while they were working for a major company. If there were 100 arrests in a short period of time, that’s notable: two arrests for people - who weren’t charged with any crime - from 2013 is a joke, and reeks of bias.

Next, a local school sending out an announcement about people legally selling door to door is not national news, and in no way, shape, or form passes WP:N, unless Wikipedia is for announcements from the PTA board.

Finally, the attempt to somehow connect Southwestern Advantage to child trafficking through (and I quote) “unfounded rumors” in 2013 is borderline slanderous. If the rumors are not true in any way, shape, or form, it is not worth mentioning on a Wikipedia page, period. The article is literally about a Facebook post - that’s the kind of threshold for reliable coverage Wikipedia is trying to have? I think not - an encyclopedia is not a home for what amounts to unfounded gossip.

The only thing worth mentioning from all the biased garbage you added is from this citation that the head of media relations noting that sometimes they receive complaints. There is a quote from 2017 in the news article cited that is useful… the rest of the information from this article is not relevant. Just read the headline and first sentence, which is blatantly trying to drum up dramatic responses (kind of like you!). The article even notes that the people mentioned “were not necessarily connected to other complaints, however”. I must ask - since when is Wikipedia a place for speculative maybes about things that hold no national relevance?

To recap: you have quoted four articles across 10+ years from completely different states, regarding less than ten employees for a company that employs thousands each year. Even under the false pretense of “addressing the page flag”, you’ve failed to do anything to improve this page. MG572W (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * How? I didn't report on the arrests - a syndicated, local news network did. Wikipedia just serves as a place to collect and record coverage by what the news reports.
 * "Wiki would need to keep records quoting local news stories of every time someone was arrested while they were working for a major company."


 * This is what Wikipedia is about? Obviously, not every arrest makes the local news. But, chances are, if it does, it's important, right? Otherwise, why would the news report on it? This is what Wikipedia is about - if you see something missing about an article or find a news source which could make an article better, then you add it. There's no length limit, so you can add as much as you'd like. (Also, as an aside, WP:N does not cover the notability of sources used. WP:N focuses on whether a subject warrants an article. Instead, you are probably looking for WP:Reliable sources, or WP:RS.)
 * "Finally, the attempt to somehow connect Southwestern Advantage to child trafficking through (and I quote) “unfounded rumors” in 2013 is borderline slanderous. If the rumors are not true in any way, shape, or form, it is not worth mentioning on a Wikipedia page, period. The article is literally about a Facebook post - that’s the kind of threshold for reliable coverage Wikipedia is trying to have? I think not - an encyclopedia is not a home for what amounts to unfounded gossip."


 * I think you are confusing *rumors* with the *spreading of rumors*. In my edits, I mention the spreading of rumors, and how the rumors were found to be unfounded. How is this not beneficial to the article? If a person comes to the article with the belief that Southwestern Advantage is associated with child trafficking because of what they heard from an online rumor, they can find a reliable source which disproves this belief. The article is not encouraging or supporting the rumors in any way.
 * "I must ask - since when is Wikipedia a place for speculative maybes about things that hold no national relevance?"


 * Remember that reliable sources do not just include national news publications. Otherwise, many articles (like this one) would be a lot shorter and would leave out the perspective of local news organizations. Would you not believe that Southwestern Advantage, a medium-sized company which spreads out its contractors across several areas would benefit from having its article improved by local news organizations?
 * "To recap: you have quoted four articles across 10+ years from completely different states, regarding less than ten employees for a company that employs thousands each year."


 * How is this bad? By including perspectives from a large time length and a variety of geographic areas, we help to represent more views. If the article was only based on recent articles or articles from one specific area, the article would be biased, leaving out the perspectives of so many.
 * Again, I have nothing against Southwestern Advantage. I'm trying to help provide more reliable sources to improve the page. I recently added even more sources to other sections of the page, in case you still believe that I have some sort of bias against this company.

I have reverted your vandalism again, since you are solely focused on adding material irrelevant to the purpose of the page. You’ve now added the same slanderous information to additional sections, while still refusing to engage with the substance of the points I’ve made. Nothing you’ve said has justified your continued spamming; you are ignoring my core points to hide under the broad guise of what you think Wikipedia is. I believe your edits are biased, even if you try to justify it by “adding sources elsewhere” as a disguise.

You said, “Wikipedia just serves as a place to collect and record coverage by what the news reports.” This is factually incorrect! If Wikipedia were a record of everything reported by every local news station, every article would be nonsense sensationalism like your edits here.

I would also encourage you to read Wikipedia’s policies around this, which I have copy-pasted a quote from here. “Per policy, Wikipedia is not for scandal mongering or gossip. Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. Some editors may take into account perceived media bias, such as Missing white woman syndrome, when assessing notability. Note that this guideline applies to articles about a wide range of subjects beyond just events including articles about living people, celebrities, and fringe ideas.”

I could care less about this weird, archaic sales company (I didn’t own a single textbook in college personally), but you are degrading Wikipedia’s core mission to be a neutral home of knowledge by manipulating these old gossip stories. Again, Wikipedia is not a platform to post unfounded Facebook rumors of child trafficking; the substance of your edits are slanted to strike up literal fear about their employees as potentially connected to stuff like pedophilia and robbery. If rumors are unfounded, what is the value of mentioning them at all??? If you can’t see how that is biased and extremely dangerous in a way that could have real-world consequences - not to mention in conflict with the goals of Wikipedia - then I can’t help you. This information does not “benefit” the page, except to fear monger.

I have rolled back the page to the version from Followcreeks on March 3rd, 2022, for the reasons listed above. MG572W (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Reversions
Hello I have noticed that many of my addition to the page have been reverted by @Grayfell without specific reasoning. I am posting here as the claim of the sources not being reliable and the wording being promotional is in conflict with other sourcing that is currently being allowed to remain on the page as well as others pages across Wikipedia. I have attached my reason below to not create an unnecessary argumentative environment. The sources listed below were claimed to be unreliable. Please explain how these are unreliable as they are independent news outlets.

https://www.herald-dispatch.com/nebraska-student-selling-educational-tools-in-wayne-county/article_d963e429-e7aa-55e3-8a31-a83fc9a8637f.html (local newspaper)

https://www.woodwardnews.net/community/the-bookman-visits-oklahoma-from-latvia/article_b5f29d02-fde4-11ec-9282-8360c7445e21.html (local newspaper)

https://www.lagrangenewsonline.com/articles/leading-texas-intern-worked-in-lagrange-county/?fbclid=IwAR2O24yeyaJqc41wVSEU9cq77AD1BsZThaquWqYWMa-HMAqTvLobI0SqtYY (local newspaper)

https://www.nashvillepost.com/business/people/veteran-southwestern-leader-to-retire/article_463d441c-39c1-11ed-b902-67300ba87aba.html How is the Nashville Post seen an unreliable, as it is a notable news outlet based in Nashville and meets GNG?

An industry specific publication (such as Direct Selling News) being seen as "unreliable" appears to be a bias POV against direct sales pages, as industry specific new outlets are commonly allowed among other business pages; i.e. Eater, ESPN, Autosport, the economist, etc. These edits were an attempt to improve the page, as mentioned in the flag by @Hipal, there is far too much on the page that is from poor sourcing and needs to be revised. Tipaloo (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The removals were made to the History section, and seem to fit with WP:NOTNEWS. --Hipal (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * All sources are evaluated in context. The reason I gave was that it was promotion wording and the sources were unreliable. Sources I removed included sources which cite Wikipedia, which violates WP:CIRC, and blatantly unreliable PR outfits like Direct Selling News. DSN lacks the positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking that is expected from reliable sources, so comparisons to sources like The Economist are unpersuasive, to put it mildly. The wording you added was too promotional, as it combined reliable and unreliable sources (which is itself also a problem per WP:SYNTH) to make claims which violated Wikipedia's expectations that articles should be written from a formal tone.
 * I will remind anyone here that Wikipedia has requirements for editors with a conflict of interest, per Conflict of interest. Editors must follow these guidelines to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use. Plain and simple conflict of interest guide may also be helpful.Grayfell (talk) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Grayfell Thank you for clarifying the reason behind the revisions made. Tipaloo (talk) 17:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the subsequent edits after observing that at least two reliable sources were removed, Turner(2007) and Cunha(2015). --Hipal (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Lobbying section
This was removed. I've copied it here in case something can be salvaged from the content or the six references. --Hipal (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC) In 2007, Southwestern Advantage lobbied against the Malinda's Traveling Sales Crew Protection Act, an anti-traveling sales crew bill intended to stop companies from putting their workers in dangerous and unfair conditions. The bill was passed, but in a form that applies only to sales workers who travel in groups of two or more.


 * I've restored the content with slightly modified sources     :


 * The archive for the first source was incorrect (IMO archive.today is prone to these errors). Whether or not an archive link works has little baring on how reliable the source is, and the other cited source for the connection to Southwestern seems clear enough that the removal of this content has not been properly justified. Grayfell (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, I am unsure the reasoning behind this being reinstated. The supporting sources do not mention southwestern advantage lobbying. Since it has been reinstated multiple times I have provided a review of all used sources.
 * https://www.telegraphherald.com/article.cfm?id=220971
 * Dead link. The alternative is to a website that has no mention of lobbying or soutthwestern advantage and is a site that also has no mention of lobbying and the only references to the company are links to this Wikipedia page (at the top).
 * https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Student-tries-to-stop-death-of-door-to-door-sales-1815596.php
 * There is no mention of lobby in this article.
 * https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2013/related/acts/361
 * Is a link to the Wisconsin legislation proposal and has no mention of the company or Lobbying
 * https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/04/trapped-into-selling-magazines-door-to-door/388601/
 * Is an article covering the bill being proposed and also has no mention of the company or lobbying
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/27/us/27wisconsin.html?ref=us&_r=0
 * Also cover legislation and has no mention of the company or Lobbying
 * https://www.littler.com/files/press/pdf/2009_04_Midwest_NewWinconsin_StatueProtectsMembers_TravelingSalesCrew.pdf
 * Lastly does not mention southwestern advantage or Lobbying.
 * I am unclear on why this section keep being reinstated when it does not mention the company lobbying and has no mention of lobbying practices. Thoughts? Tipaloo (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on the above? If nothing by the end of the week, I am going to remove the content again as it is not supported by sourcing. Thanks! Tipaloo (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain what "alternative" you're referring to with the thonline(telegraphherald) reference. --Hipal (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "Southwestern Advantage" was a party. Some refs don't mention it by name, but we have some that do.
 * I'm not finding verification for "lobbying", but there is verification that they were against the bill. I'm having difficulties finding some of the references, but there was a great deal of coverage, so there may be others we can use. Maybe change the wording for now? --Hipal (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The alternative, being the site that it redirects to having no reference of southwestern advantage or lobbying.
 * I agree with you on not being able to find any references to southwestern advantage lobbying. I am going to remove the section unless sourcing is provided, as currently there is none that merits it being on the page.
 * Also, who do you mean by "we"? Tipaloo (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per above, blanking the section is not an appropriate response. Grayfell (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless sufficient Independent sources that offer Verifiability are attached it seems that the removal of this section is an appropriate response. Does this seem unreasonable? Tipaloo (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this about "lobbying" or the entire incident? I'm fine with "lobbying" being removed unless someone can clearly verify it. Removal of the entire section is inappropriate. --Hipal (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect the dead link is for this AP story: "Father rips lawmaker on sales bill" Per that story: A dead teenager's father and a liberal advocacy group have accused a Wisconsin lawmaker of blocking a bill regulating door-to-door sales crews in exchange for campaign contributions. ... Campaign finance reports show Moulton, chairman of the Assembly Small Business Committee, recorded $1,000 in June from three executives of Southwestern Company, the only company registered against the measure. I have omitted some content for brevity, obviously. AP stories are often removed from online archives, but this doesn't make them any less reliable. 'Verifiability' doesn't mean 'convenient'.
 * The Chronicle source does mention the bill as it relates to Southwestern: Still, the publisher vigorously defends its turf. Earlier this year, it fought a bill introduced in the Wisconsin Senate that would have required it to pay its sales staff salaries. Possibly the broadest such measure yet introduced in a state legislature, the bill, authored by state Sen. Jon Erpenbach, now awaits action in the lower house. Moore says Southwestern opposed the bill because it would require the company to jettison the independent-contractor system, a business model, he says, that nurtures the entrepreneurial spirit.
 * So, per sources, this was lobbying in both the colloquial and literal sense of the word. I would suggest that a primary source would be a useful supplement to whatever more reliable WP:IS can be found. Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR, so cutting this completely does not seem appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2023 (UTC)