Talk:Wayfair

File:Wayfair tagline 300x150.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * Re. mention of the tagline, I commented out the tagline in the infobox because its inclusion resulted in an unknown parameter error. Kekki1978 (talk) 19:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

When
It wasn't clear to me when Wayfair was or became the largest online home furniture retailer in the US, or whether it still holds this status. I looked at the source and I didn't see this info listed there. Perhaps I missed something. Kekki1978 (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is more like an advertisement.
Just what I said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.73.246 (talk) 13:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Citation needed in paragraph 2007-2010
A citation is needed to confirm the facts listed under paragraph 2007-2010Oliverk25 (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions
I know Wayfair launched their Canada site within the last year, not sure if they have any other international business but might be helpful to include that information here. Also should explain/cite the claim that Wayfair is the largest online-only retailer for home furniture in the United States.Killeenkr (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC) In the company information box, the CFO Michael Fleisher is currently a link to the Wiki page of a different Michael Fleisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2800:5100:38D7:3D7B:274A:7174 (talk) 18:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Copy-editing tag areas of concern
The following 2 sentences on the current page are incongruent with the tone of Wikipedia:

On June 26, 2019 many Wayfair employees not supporting the walkout questioned why the "social justice warriors" had no issues using IPHONES made from child slave labor in China.

ON June 27 Madeline Howard was anointed

VP Social Integrity — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8301:47DB:AD49:D749:3DF1:3865 (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I removed some vandalism by this troll whose edits seem to be all vandalism. Can someone report him/her? --88.71.242.99 (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory
As much as I disdain Wikipedia giving air to any Qanon nonsense, it's been reported in a few reasonable sources, including Newsweek, Yahoo, and a few others. I'm restoring it for now with some misgivings. Other input is welcome. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

This is exactly my point for including it. It is no longer non-mainstream and it has been picked up by various news agencies and is even on snopes. I don't see why it wouldn't be relevant to the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.226.118.251 (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I've adjusted the wording a bit. I'm thinking the section header should eventually be removed altogether, though it could remain for now. gobonobo  + c 01:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * how's the following:

Reddit conspiracy theory
On July 9, 2020 Reddit user posted in the r/conspiracy subreddit a question asking if Wayfair was involved in human trafficking, specifying the high prices of several WFX Utility storage cabinets. Wayfair responded to these stating, "There is, of course, no truth to these claims." It has been compared to the Pizzagate conspiracy theory.


 * You'll need to remove the group from the references, just using it to keep things organized here. Jerod Lycett (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I personally like the wording, but in my opinion you should omit the Reddit user's username. I can't state a specific WP policy reason for it, but it would help make sure they don't become a victim of harassment. On a side-note, should we add a controversies section? Between this and the controversy over their providing beds for migrant detention centers, it could be warranted. Praefect94 (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The user's name shouldn't be mentioned, especially if cited to the primary source, and citing Reddit really isn't a good idea anyway. It really doesn't even belong here, and I've redacted it. Stick to secondary sources. The naming falls under WP:BLPNAME.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The username is in both the gizmodo and newsweek articles. However I just wrote this up as a quick statement with fairly neutral wording, edit as/if you wish and use it. The main reason I cited to Reddit is for the date of the original post, as many had said it occurred on the 10th, and wanted to ensure the date was properly cited to so it wouldn't get changed. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just because it's cite-able doesn't make it suitable for inclusion. I would leave it out unless the person becomes well-known for more than an instant.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


 * So long as no one tries to claim Twitter as The Verge, then I am pretty much fine with whatever. Only thing I am currently opposed to is the claim that Wayfair contradicted themselves without proof.  --Super Goku V (talk) 19:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The cited Snopes source clearly describes the conspiracy theory as false. Removing that description (and hence presenting this nonsense to readers as potentially true) is disruptive and may lead to sanctions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

The Newsweek article cites it as unsubstantiated, not false. Please look up the definition of unsubstantiated. It means unconfirmed, neither true nor false. Which is exactly what this theory is. Joeblacko (talk) 00:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

User NorthBySouthBaranof needs to be blocked from edits to this page until he knows the proper words & their definitions. Joeblacko (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a moderator, but in my opinion Baranof hasn't done anything to warrant a block from editing this or any pages. We do however need to stop with the edit warring. The article has been edited and rolled back five times today, alone. Obviously there isn't consensus on the edits you wish to make, and it's something we need to discuss. Praefect94 (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure I understand how describing the theory as false is WP:NPOV. If reliable sources describe it as false, or words to that effect, I would think it acceptable to word it in the vein of Sites such as Snopes have described the theory as "false" and "unsubstantiated". - doing this in a way that does not give undue weight to the claims of this theory seems the preferable option, rather than seemingly 'taking a side' on the theory. Acalycine (talk) 04:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Because per black-letter policy, uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. No reliable source suggests that there is any truth to this nonsense. It is entirely uncontroversial among reliable sources that Wayfair is not actually trafficking children around the country inside industrial cabinetry and that the entire idea is a ridiculous delusion even more bizarre than Pizzagate (which we also directly describe as "debunked" and declare its claims "false" - because that's what reliable sources do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet the sentence past that says: Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion - there's clearly a disagreement here, over otherwise uncontested information. I'm thus not sure why specific attribution is not a requirement here, as per the policy you link. The last point of that policy also says: Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Ensure that the reporting of different views on a subject adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity, or give undue weight to a particular view. For example, to state that "According to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field. - this is obviously relevant here, and labelling this theory a 'conspiracy theory' and specifying who is promoting it is thus enough to reflect the relative levels of support for it. Thanks. Acalycine (talk) 09:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's not, and there is no disagreement. No source provides any support for this ludicrous insanity. WP:FRINGE applies to things randomly made up on Reddit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where, in that 3rd dotpoint, is the requirement of "disagreement must come from reliable sources"? It's clearly contested en masse - this isn't a single freak hurling baseless accusations; it's masses of people who are convinced that this viral (baseless) theory is true. there is no disagreement is evidently a false statement. Looking forward to your citing of the relevant policy in response to my question. Acalycine (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Where? In WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:FRINGE, that's where. All content in Wikipedia must be based upon reliable sources. We literally don't care what masses of people believe. Masses of people believe the Earth is flat, but nonetheless, we describe Earth's sphericity as a scientific fact, because that is what reliable sources say. Please review WP:NPOV and specifically WP:GEVAL: While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. Your argumentum ad populum has no validity here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You also need to review WP:DUE: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. The corollary to this, of course, is that viewpoints which have not been published by reliable sources are to be excluded. And, of course, as WP:V requires that All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable, this is just so. As you cannot find the viewpoint that "Wayfair is actually trafficking children inside industrial cabinetry" published by any reliable source, we exclude it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that there is an open investigation by Homeland Security over these allegations, I'd be for omitting the word "falsely", as there is currently no definitive proof otherwise. SKay (talk) 11:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And just for the record, I would not consider Snopes a 100% reliable source. SKay (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Snopes is a reliable source per long-standing consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Umm, a source for the claim that Homeland Security is investigating? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is inaccurate. The conspiracy originated on 4Chan, not Reddit. It picked up a lot of steam after it got to Reddit, but it started on 4chan. monokrome (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You would need a source for that. RS are saying it started on Reddit, and while that may be wrong, it's at least verified. Prinsgezinde (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory and due weight
While it's certainly notable, I don't see a point in having an entire subsection devoted to the conspiracy theory and detailing certain aspects of it. I think most of us can agree that it's nonsense, and so can the reliable sources that discussed it. As such, I've boldly shortened the part and removed the subsection header. It's a part of their 2020 history, and we need to watch out for falling into the trap of recentism. Prinsgezinde (talk) 07:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good call, I agree that it doesn't merit a dedicated subsection. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I think that the current sentence is fine, — Paleo Neonate  – 23:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say it probably warrants a little more, but I'd agree it doesn't need a whole subsection. As it continues bleeding into the mainstream, we also get a longer running coverage of it. Hopefully (and hopefully for Wayfair) it dies down in the next two days, in which case 2 sentences should be enough. If it continues for a fortnight, you'd probably want 3-4 to cover the main point or two. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Still making the news currently. USA Today at 10am ET and The Detroit News at 7pm ET on the 16th.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)