Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:19, 1 February 2013

Template:BLP noticeboard

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Business This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Idaho Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Idaho (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

NAICS 454111

Early discussion

I added information on the sales modes that the company uses but Rhode Island Red reverted it. The contention is that Melaleuca does not sell its products through multilevel marketing, online shopping, and retail sales. I did not mention this before, but Melaleuca's sales operations are officially categorized under the following two NAICS codes (directly quoted):

• "454111 - Electronic Shopping"

• "454390 - Other Direct Selling Establishments"

The first code should be included in the article unless there are reliable sources that state that the company does not offer its products for sale over the Internet or retail. Because the relevant Misplaced Pages article is entitled online shopping, I opted to use that name instead of "electronic shopping". There are multiple sources that refer to Melaleuca's online sales and retail. Andrew 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious about the notion that Hoover's Company In-Depth Records constitutes something "official". I'm not (yet?) persuaded that we need to have our article reflect what that particular company says about Melaleuca. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

We engaged in a lengthy discussion about the MLM designation long ago. We reviewed multiple sources (in the dozens) establishing that Melaleuca is an MLM company. The issue was brought to several noticeboards and resolved conclusively. Since then, "multilevel marketing" gradually got pushed farther and farther down the lead and then finally diluted with other terms such as internet sales etc. That's not cool at all and it smack of whitewashing. There's no point in having these discussion if the participants refuse to abide by the outcome. Hoover's (one source) does not outweigh all of the other sources that establish the company as an MLM, and if you think otherwise, then the onus is on you to make a compelling case here instead of edit warring. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes Hoovers isn't good enough, we'd need something from a news source where a third-party discusses the issue, before we reopen this can of worms. I'm less firm on its permanency of the term MLM, considering the attractiveness of words like "pyramid scheme" or "MLM" to journalists trying to sensationalize or sell copies of their publications, but no Hoover's doesn't work in comparison to third-party commentary. No source to support the contention still. So not conversation yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I missed the big consensus concerning reference to ML as an MLM. When was it? Maybe RIR or Nomo can enlighten us. And I suppose some editors missed this comment I made on 13 November 2012, because I never did get a response to it: 'I call everybody's attention to the fact that this article was stabilized for two months, without referring to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing organization, a term that Frank VanderSloot himself (the subject of this article) vigorously denies. The stable version was instituted here. and was reverted here by Rhode Island Red, who had been absent from the discussion for that length of time. The two-month-stable version was reinstated by User:Collect

Hoover's is a very important and highly regarded source about businesses. It is part of Dun & Bradstreet. It is not an "iffy source" - it meets WP:RS. It is used as a source in thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. If one wishes to dispute this, RS/N is thataway. Collect (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it meets RS. But I reject the notion that it amounts to something "official" as per Andrew's post, and I see no good reason it should direct the way we describe Melaleuca in the lead sentence. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

NAICS classifications are established by the US Government. Is that "official" enough for you? Hoover reports on the classifications which a company falls under. Hoover is WP:RS and has been considered so for aeons on Misplaced Pages. NAICS is not a creation of Hoover. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Collect -- it's not official enough. The government makes the codes -- but Hoover's decision to label a company with particular codes is Hoover's own decision (or so it would appear). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

The codes are not generated by Hoovers. Period. The codes are used on government forms which the company is required by law to furnish. Companies are required to accurately state the business they are involved in. The codes are used by multiple government agencies including the Internal Revenue Service, Bureau of the Census, EPA, etc. They are numbers which have the same legal value as social security numbers have for individuals in some respects. Is this sufficiently clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah -- so the company itself determines what number to report? Fascinating. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

No more than the company also "determines" what income to report to the IRS. The IRS would put the company under horrid fines if it lied about its status on forms sent to the IRS, folks. The NAICS number is thus used with the weight of the federal government. You act like the company simply lies on all its government required forms? Really????Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the "creativity" of many large corporations' tax affairs, I do think you've come up with a rather apt analogy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I have a very dim view of MLM's and the like, but your approach here is not helpful. If you are editing here under the premise that he is doing something illegal I suggest you provide some evidence or go elsewhere. Arzel (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation NAICS code is: 813410, Civic and Social Organizations. . Not a number generated or assigned or created by Hoover's. A number required by federal law. Collect (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Even more fascinating -- WIkipedia is a "civic and social organization". Who knew? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep -- read the definitions thereof. Collect (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I found just one citation to the Hoover's group in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. I'm posting a notice at Project Business for others to chime in here if they like. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Later discussion

Post new remarks here.

NAICS is referenced at insideview.com

Manta.com

Gale company profiles

Industrynet.com

And a few hundred more sites.

There is, IMHO, little doubt that the NAICS number per government regulations are reported in multiple reliable sources for this company, and such numbers are not created or "given" by any of these sources. Collect (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your argument seems to be that the article shouldn't refer to Melaleuca as a multi-level marketing company because of Hoover's. You do realize that's an unsupportable argument right? So why continue to split hairs? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I wrote absolutely nothing of the kind, and I would ask you to remove your errant comments saying I wrote something I did not write. Making such claims is uncollegial entirely. And a really, really poor method of discussing anything. What I did post is that Hoover's did not "create" or "assign" anything at all to the company whatsoever, that the NAICS number is required by the US government, and is controlled by US government agencies. I would also note that by your apparent standards, Sam's Club is an MLM as it charges a "membership fee" and allows resale of its goods. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I said nothing that warrants removal. Be specific and other editors won't have to guess what you're getting at. I'd like to cut to the chase and understand why we're bothering talking about the source at all -- what edits are being proposed? The analogy about Sam's Club isn't constructive because, unlike in the case of Melaleuca, there aren't more than 20 reliable sources that identify Sam's Club as an MLM company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

If I was here at the time, I would have replied above. The NAICS number is self-reported, and there is only a penalty if willfully misreported. In other words, if they don't call themselves and MLM, and they believe they do not qualify as the NAICS code for MLM, then they can properly report otherwise. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe that two different issues are being confounded here: if Melaleuca is an MLM and if Melaleuca sells its products through retail and Internet means in addition to other ways. I don't get why Melaleuca running a store and a website somehow changes the MLM issue. The edits I made did not change the MLM wording whatsoever. More to the point, reliable sources state that the company has stores, so there should be no controversy over saying so. The company operates stores from Idaho to Shenzhen for members to use. Similarly, there is no doubt that members can buy things from the company website as well. Andrew 19:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning that the company sells online, etc., but the way the text was modified watered down the essential point that the company is an MLM. A series of modifications were introduced without discussion that gradually pushed the MLM designation further and further down in the description, ultimately obscuring the facts. It should be stated upfront that the company is an MLM without obfuscation. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the other parent, and the actual NAICS numbers in question:

• There isn't a specific NAICS number for MLM.
• A company with either of the codes (454111 or 454390 ) could still be entirely MLM (with some effort — "retail" customers are arbitrarily assigned to a sponsor — specific example available by E-mail), or primarily MLM.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Arthur: As I said before, I am not looking to argue the MLM issue based solely on NAICS. The reason I posted them was to draw attention to NAICS 454111 as evidence that the company sells products over the Internet, which is well established. The sentence that was repeatedly reverted did not change the MLM wording. Andrew 02:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Melaleuca Subheads Reverted

The recent addition of subheadings to the Melaleuca section of the article has been reverted because they did not accurately describe the content. For example the "founding" section refers to the company's current product portfolio (nothing to do with founding); the business model section refers to details that have nothing to do with the business model (distributor earnings) and it fails to mention the most central characteristic of the business model -- that the company is an MLM; the "reach" section describes details that have nothing to do with reach (eg, revenue); the membership section refers to Vandersloot's role on the executive of DSA and his contributions to the DSA's PAC (which have nothing to do with membership per se); and what are labelled as "government inquiries" were not not in fact inquiries (they were "investigations" and a warning letter). The newly added subheads create more problems than they solve. If there is any further interest in adding subheads, which don't seem to be necessary, then a proposal should be presented here for further discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor above has taken the second step in the WP:BRD model, Reversion, and has begun the third step, Discussion. He seems to have two objections to the editing changes I suggested in this diff, wherein my Edit Summary said "Dividing Melaleuca section with subheaders for ease of understanding and of editing. Moving one fact from one part of the Section to another; no change in wording." RIR reverted, with the Edit Summary as "these subheads don't work -- square pegs in round holes -- see Talk." His explanation above seems to be based on two premises: (1) Subheads are not necessary, and (2) they don't accurately describe content.

We should handle the first objection first: Are subheads necessary (or even desirable)? I say yes, they are desirable, because the section is pretty long right now, covering a wide variety of subjects, and the average reader might like some help in switching from one major detail to another. (I couldn't find any guidance to the use of subheads in the swamp of Misplaced Pages policies and advice, but that doesn't mean there is none.) Anyway, I made this proposal primarily for the ease of reader comprehension: The advantage of editing ease is just a positive side effect. If we have a WP:Consensus that this long section should be broken into its parts, then we can talk later about just what those parts should consist of and what the subheads should say. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting the cart before the horse. If the material fits well into a specific set of subheads, then using subheads might be appropriate. If they don't (as in the recent revision), then it is not appropriate. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead

In general

I'm wondering something at this point. The MLM issue has been beaten to death here unless new sources are provided, but why is it in the lead? That Melaleuca is considered by this article to be an MLM is mentioned in only a four word phrase very low down in the article, and is not in any way a major part of the article. If it is contentious as to whether or not the phrase could be harmful to the person represented in this article (that's not something anybody disagrees with), and is a minuscule, non-important part of the article, can we not remove it from the lead, leaving it lower down? I know that previously the MLM issue was a larger part of the article, but most of those items have been removed. Is it still necessary for the lead? I don't see how removing it harms the article, other than perhaps an impulse to flag this minor point due to its potential connotations that are not really fleshed out in the article. Just wanted the opinions of those who have been working so hard to get this article into shape :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The MLM aspect is a cardinal feature of the company, and it has been established that the company is an MLM by about two dozen sources, which were discussed already at great length. Whatever connotations the term MLM might have to some people are irrelevant; it is not slang and it is not inherently negative. As I've said before, the argument you have raised is akin to saying that we shouldn't include the fact that a company sold credit default swaps because the term might arouse negative emotions. The discussion about MLM has dragged on way too long already. Beating dead horses is not constructive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jeremy is on to something, and I applaud his endeavor. I would like to remove the MLM issue from the article entirely, since it is contentious and really minor in "real life," but getting it out of the lede is a good idea. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it quite obvious already that you would prefer the article be whitewashed of the term MLM -- you have been campaigning unsuccessfully to do this for the better part of a year now. But the fact remains, the MLM feature is a defining characteristic of the company that has been established by a plethora of sources. Persisting with this argument is counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is a cardinal feature of the company worthy of being included in the lead. I don't know much about MLM as a term or as a practice, but I think we have too many conflicting sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of this article. Here's a new one that I plan to incorporate soon: http://www.cnbc.com/id/100366770. This source quotes VS stating that Melaleuca is not an MLM and says that the company does not meet state or federal criteria.HtownCat (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There are no "federal criteria", except in VanderSloot's opinion. To quote that article, "everybody has their own definition of multi-level marketing." There are criteria for an organization being a pyramid scheme, and that is alleged (in this case) by a number of reliable sources, but not proven. See, for example Multi-level marketing#Criticism for the difference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The MLM issue is a non-issue. The company is unequivocally an MLM. In addition to the 20+ sources (which have been presented and discussed already) that establish the fact that Melaleuca is an MLM, Vandersloot himself admitted it to the Utah Attorney General in this official affidavit he signed. It says "The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare procucts, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan" -- and Vandersloot signed it! So if Vandersloot turned around and attempted to deny that the Melaleuca is an MLM, he was either not being truthful, or he was not truthful when he signed the AGs affidavit. Either way, any denial of the MLM nature of his business that Vandersloot may have issued subsequently can be dismissed as PR fluff -- inconsequential noise -- and an apparently less than honest attempt at damage control. Regardless, the WP article cannot be a party to misrepresentation of the nature of Vandersloot's business. Please let this issue die once and for all and stop wasting WP resources by continuing to beat this long dead horse. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They are indeed an MLM - they may not want to be labelled that to distance themselves from the moniker, however a company is MLM based on its compensation structure (getting paid for not just your own customers, but also sales the people you recruit do as well). They use a 5x7 "Forced Matrix" compensation plan. I found a PDF of their compensation plan online here: http://mlmhelpdesk.com/wp-content/Docs/Melaleuca/BB_CompPlan_enUs.pdf

The question on whether to include it in the lede, I'll leave up to the active editors here to continue discussing.  Leef5   18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Three different issues

There are three issues that are now being considered, discussed, and confused.

Does Melaleuca use the Internet and retail locations to sell products?

There is no doubt. They have stores all over the world and the website is self-evident (in addition to being referenced in reliable sources). Rhode Island Red says that (s)he does not want the words multilevel marketing to be obscured by having retail and Internet in their vacinity. This is not a valid reason to repeatedly revert edits.

Should the words "multilevel marketing" be placed in the article's lead?

I see more opposition than support on this front. Remember that this is a BLP, not an article about the company. It would be akin to starting the article on Henry Ford as "Henry Ford (July 30, 1863 – April 7, 1947) was the founder of Ford Motors, a franchise-dealership business."

Is Melaleuca an MLM?

This is a larger question and one that has not been resolved. I'm just about the only person who has actually written content on the BLP about the company's business model as opposed to clinging to catchphrases. The Consent Decree states that, in the 1990s, the Idaho Attorney General believed that Melaleuca was an MLM. I'm sure that VanderSloot would still agree that that was the AG's opinion at the time. Trying to read legal documents is tricky at best and interpreting them is in danger of becoming WP:Original Research. Leef5 states that Melaleuca is an MLM based on his own review of a compensation plan found on a website, which fails both WP:OR and WP:SPS. Arthur Rubin states that there is no federal definition of MLM, which is not true. A previous editor pointed to the definition adopted by the FTC in rule-making documents here. The company does not appear to fit that definition, which refers to multiple levels of distribution or sale. Melaleuca sells products directly. I have not reviewed each of the state’s laws (and it does not appear that any other editors has either), but it appears that VanderSloot may be correct in that the company does not fit the definitions that rely on multiple distributor or sales levels.

In any event, the Talk page of a Misplaced Pages article is not the place to have a scholarly debate about the meaning of the term MLM. We are not MLM experts. We are here to report on what the sources say. Some sources describe the company as an MLM (although most of the sources cited by RIR do not actually analyze the issue and/or are from political sources without deep backgrounds in business). Some sources describe the company as a Consumer Direct Marketing Company. Other sources describe the company as a network marketing company. VanderSloot has steadfastly maintained that his company is not an MLM based on material differences between the distribution methodology between his company and others, such as Herbalife (that is making headlines in the news). Let’s not take sides and act like we know better. There is nothing definitive here that conclusively establishes the company as an MLM. I see no reason for this in the lead, and I see a need to revise the description in the body of the text to incorporate all sources and viewpoints, particularly those held by the subject of this BLP. Andrew 02:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

More than 20 sources including VanderSloot himself acknowledged that Melaleuca is an MLM. According to the overwhelming preponderance of evidence -- it's an MLM company. The detail is not ambiguous; we've addressed it on multiple noticeboards and talked about it ad nauseum. I can't understand the reason for your confusion about the issue or why you are still trying to challenge the validity of using the term in the article.

As for the lead, the MLM detail is a defining feature of what the company is/does, as established by a preponderance of sources, so it naturally belongs in the lead as per WP:LEAD – ie, Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company that sells x,y,z”. The phrase " multi-level marketing company" had been in the lead for quite some time, so it seems very odd to campaign for its removal all of a sudden, given the preponderance of evidence and past discussions. The suggestion is WP:TE.Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A couple things: First, the attorney general's affidavit that states that the AG believes that Melaleuca is an MLM does not mean establish that the company is an MLM nor that VanderSloot believes that it is an MLM. Second, in footnote 34 on page 16113 in this register, an MLM is defined by its distribution method, not its compensation method.

I'm throwing the above out there for general knowledge, but I agree with Andrew that we don't need to debate whether or not Melaleuca is an MLM. Going by the sources, however, is inconclusive. Sure there are quite a few articles that refer to the company as an MLM, but there are also quite a few that refer to it as Consumer Direct or quote VanderSloot denying any relationship to the MLM structure. So based on the sources, we don't know if Melaleuca is an MLM and it should not be in the lead.HtownCat (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Continuing to debate this in the face of such overwhelming evidence is really counterproductive (i.e., WP:TE). I suggest you go back and read the archives and let this issue die once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Sources

I previously stayed out of this argument but lately it has become absurd. The lead is supposed to reflect the preponderance of secondary sources, so I searched to see how (mostly) reliable sources refer to the company, especially in their leads.

VanderSloot's own words

• "We don't want to be thrown in the multilevel bucket because there are programs there that we just don't want to be affiliated with. Nothing else we do is even similar."

• "It's unfortunate that someone would suggest that Melaleuca is something like Amway. It's not. We started Melaleuca 26 years ago to market environmentally responsible products and to provide a business opportunity for folks who weren't successful in climbing the corporate ladder and didn't inherit wealth from their parents. We try to be champions of the little guy. My father was a little guy. And I still see myself as a little guy. Contrary to those who do not know us, our business model is nothing like Amway or Herbalife. I challenge anyone to find any similarity whatsoever. There is no investment of any kind unless you want to call a $29 membership fee an "investment." And anyone can get a refund on that by just asking. We do offer a home-based business opportunity. But it is no "pyramid scheme." We have long been critical of the many MLM/pyramid schemes operating in this country. I agree with those who say that typical MLM companies destroy people?s finances. Most are designed to attract people to "invest" in large purchases with the promise of "getting rich" quickly by getting others to invest. The guy at the top always wins and the guy on the bottom always loses. In Melaleuca's case there is no investment and no getting others to invest. We do pay commissions to those who have referred customers based on what those customers purchase. There is really no way to lose money on referring customers. And there's no way for customers to lose either when they're buying high-quality products at grocery store prices. Customers just order the products they use every month directly from the factory. We have hundreds of thousands of customers who buy from us each month. They don't ever resell anything. They don't invest in any inventory. There can be no pyramiding without some kind of investment. In 26 years, no one has ever complained that they lost money. It?s simply not possible. Our business model works pretty well for most folks. We have already paid over $2.9 billion in commissions to households across the country. Our mission is to enhance lives by helping people reach their goals regardless of their beliefs, backgrounds, or affiliations. Last month we sent out almost 200,000 checks to American households alone. Members of those households tell us we are doing a pretty good job achieving that mission."

Op-ed and pundits

• "Frank VanderSloot is the CEO of Melaleuca Inc. The 63-year-old has run that wellness-products company for 26 years out of tiny Idaho Falls, Idaho."

• "The founder of Melaleuca, which sells $700 million in wellness products a year, Vandersloot puts business first, partisanship second."

• "Turns out Idaho Citizens for Justice got half its money from Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls firm owned by Frank VanderSloot..."

• Even Rachel Maddow didn't think it was important to mention MLM in initially describing the company: "In addition to being the national finance co-chair for the Mitt Romney presidential campaign, he also runs a company called Melaleuca, which sells all sort of household products."

Organizations

• BYU Hawaii press release: "Johanson...most recently worked as Communications Manager for Melaleuca Inc. in Idaho Falls, Idaho, an $860 million worldwide wellness products company."Foley, Mike (21 January 2009). "BYUH names new Director of Communications and Marketing" (Online) (Press release). Hawaii: BYUH. Retrieved 2013-01-19.

• DSA profile written by the company: "Melaleuca manufactures all types of wellness products, including nutritional supplements, pharmaceutical products, cosmetics, eco-friendly cleaners, and personal care products."

Business databases

• "Deriving its name from the tea tree (Melaleuca alternifolia), the company is a leading manufacturer and direct seller of more than 350 personal care and household products, many of which are environmentally friendly."

• Orbis categorizes the company as an "Industrial company" and files its distribution model under "Direct selling establishments".

• MarketResearch's report is behind a huge paywall, but the abstract is available: "Melaleuca, Inc. (Melaleuca) is one of the leading manufacturers of wellness products, based in the US. The company manufactures and distributes nutritional supplements, pharmaceutical, personal care, facial care, cosmetics, home hygiene and various wellness products. Melaleuca delivers its products directly to customers through a catalog and internet shopping system. In addition, it offers more than 400 products for home and family, which include wellness products for kids, including a complete line of skin care and cosmetics, bath and body solutions, and pharmaceuticals. The company carries out its operations in the US, Canada, Japan, Hong Kong, Macao, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, China, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, Puerto Rico, Jamaica and Bahamas. Melaleuca is headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, the US."

• The Million Dollar Database categorizes Melaleuca under the following codes:

"SIC Codes

28 - CHEMICALS AND ALLIED PRODUCTS

2833 - MEDICINALS AND BOTANICALS

28330109 - VITAMINS, NATURAL OR SYNTHETIC: BULK, UNCOMPOUNDED

Other SIC Codes

28340000 - PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS

28410000 - SOAP AND OTHER DETERGENTS

28440000 - TOILET PREPARATIONS

51220000 - DRUGS, PROPRIETARIES, AND SUNDRIES"

Line of Business

MFG MEDICINAL/BOTANICALS WHOL DRUGS/SUNDRIES MFG TOILET PREPARATIONS MFG SOAP/OTHER DETERGENT MFG PHARMACEUTICAL PREPS

Products Manufacturing

NAICS Codes

325411 - MEDICINAL AND BOTANICAL MANUFACTURING

Other NAICS Codes

325412 - PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATION MANUFACTURING

325611 - SOAP AND OTHER DETERGENT MANUFACTURING

325620 - TOILET PREPARATION MANUFACTURING"

Journalists

• "Melaleuca Inc., the Idaho Falls-based wellness products company that employs more than 3,400"

• "One of Idaho's largest privately held companies, Melaleuca is headquartered in Idaho Falls and has over 3,400 employees, including sales offices in Hong Kong, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, New Zealand and the United Kingdom."

• "Melaleuca markets personal care and household products."

• "Melaleuca, The Wellness Company, a manufacturer of 350 health and wellness products sold directly to consumers around the world..."

• "Melaleuca, Inc., an Idaho Falls company that sells its products friend-to-friend, word-of-mouth throughout the country, is expanding into Canada."

• "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based natural products company."

• "An Idaho Falls manufacturer of nutritional, pharmaceutical, personal care and household cleaning products is ranked No. 4 in the nation in absolute dollar growth and No. 5 in job creation by Inc. magazine, hitting the most categories of any Idaho company on the list."

• "Melaleuca thrives on well-oiled direct-marketing plan" (in title).

• "wellness products maker Melaleuca in Idaho Falls, Idaho. The 2,500-employee company manufactures and direct markets nutritional, pharmaceutical, personal care, home hygiene, and other wellness products throughout the U.S. and various global markets."

• "Now in its 22nd year, Melaleuca Inc. sells nutritional supplements, skin creams and other products largely through home-based businesses and personal-product presentations."

• "Frank L. VanderSloot , president and CEO of Idaho-based Melaleuca Inc., agrees the industry got a bad reputation from some overzealous firms."

• "His Idaho-based company, Melaleuca, which manufactures and distributes natural products ranging from shampoo to vitamins to tile cleaner, has reinvented the direct-marketing model, beginning by dialing back the sales pressure."

• "The Idaho Falls-based manufacturer of health and beauty products..." The title refers to the company as a "health products manufacturer".

• "Health and wellness company Melaleuca..."

• "Melaleuca produces cosmetics, household products and nutritional supplements."

• "Melaleuca Inc., the producer of cosmetics, household products and nutritional supplements..."

• "Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls-based health products company, found the family and paid for their transportation, gas, lodging and food on the trip West, Harris said."

• New York Times: "Melaleuca, an Idaho-based company that manufactures skin and nutritional products."

• "Frank Vandersloot, who owns the health care products company Melaleuca Inc., is donating the money after a drive to replace crumbling McDermott Field had fallen short of a $1.35 million fundraising goal..."

• "An Idaho Falls businessman who already owns a health-care products company with $650 million in annual sales is thinking about expanding -- into radio."

• "US-based Melaleuca Inc., a fast-growing direct marketing company..."

• "Melaleuca markets personal care and household products. The company is based in Idaho Falls."

• "Melaleuca Inc., a direct sales giant in the USA, announced in Shanghai on December 12th that it obtained a direct sales license from the Ministry of Commerce."

• "Melaleuca Inc., The Wellness Company is expanding its facility in the Forks of the River Industrial Park. The company manufactures nutritional and pharmaceutical products."

• "A health care products company has broken ground on a $3.28 million manufacturing facility in Bonneville County."

• "Melaleuca Inc., which manufactures nutritional and pharmaceutical products, will hold a ground breaking ceremony at 11 a.m. Thursday for a $22 million expansion of its Forks of the River distribution center."

• "Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho-based maker of nutritional supplements, cleaning supplies and other products, is building a 231,000-square-foot distribution center that will nearly double the size of its facility in Forks of the River Industrial Park and bring jobs to Knox County."

• "The Idaho Falls-based health care products company Melaleuca Inc...."

• "The reach of Melaleuca Inc. long has stretched beyond the borders of Bonneville County. The company offers 352 household products and sells its wares directly to customers in the U.S. and 13 foreign markets. Melaleuca has been a global player for 14 years, since the company entered Taiwan, its first Asian market. The company employs nearly 3,100 workers worldwide."

All sources after this line are currently cited in the BLP

• "Frank VanderSloot is best known as the successful owner of Melaleuca, a global supplier of cleaning and wellness products made with natural ingredients."

• "Four contributions of $250,000 to Mr. Romney’s super PAC came from affiliates of Melaleuca, an Idaho-based company that manufactures skin and nutritional products."

• "...his health and home products company, Melaleuca, had lost hundreds of customers, and asserting the Obama campaign list and liberal websites have misrepresented his company and political activism."

• "The 1966 Sandpoint High School grad makes his home in Idaho Falls, Idaho, where his international manufacturing company is headquartered."

• "Mkts. pharmaceuticals & personal-care prods."

• "Frank VanderSloot, CEO of the Idaho Falls-based wellness company Melaleuca..."

• "He is chief executive of Melaleuca Inc., which sells cleaning supplies and personal-care products."

• "Vandersloot, the founder and CEO of Idaho Falls-based health care products company Melaleuca Inc., said he learned of the two federal inquires within the last month and intends to cooperate."

• "Yet VanderSloot, owner of the Melaleuca wellness product company, never expected to be branded on an presidential campaign website as a 'litigious, combative and bitter foe of the gay rights movement.'"

• "Frank VanderSloot, founder and CEO of the eastern Idaho Melaleuca Corp. and listed by Reuters as one of presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's top contributors, says he's on a White House enemies list and is the subject of two federal investigations..."

• "Vandersloot is the CEO of Idaho Falls-based health care company Melaleuca Inc. and among donors who have given $1 million to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney."

• "Meanwhile, Frank VanderSloot, owner of Idaho Falls-based health products direct marketer Melaleuca Inc., injected some $1.5 million into the pro-overhaul effort..."

• "...it emerged that the funding for both came from Melaleuca Inc., a personal-care products firm in eastern Idaho headed by conservative activist Frank VanderSloot."

• "That helps explain why, Thursday evenings in the downtown building of Melaleuca, a health-products company owned by Frank VanderSloot, one of Idaho's richest Mormons, groups of Rexburg college students and townies get together."

• "The zillionaire CEO of Melaleuca, Eastern Idaho's huge health-products company?"

• ""People are thinking a lot more about the price of freedom," says Frank VanderSloot, president of Melaleuca, a company that sponsors one of the country's largest fireworks displays in Idaho Falls, Idaho..."

• "Since Melaleuca began in September 1985, CEO Frank VanderSloot has directed its growth into an international company that reaches hundreds of thousands of households across the globe."

The striking thing is that even sources that have mean things to say about VanderSloot still generally do not introduce the company as "Melaleuca, a multilevel marketing company...". In fact, the vast majority of coverage that the business has received, especially in the neutral press as opposed to politically biased sources, make no reference to MLM. There is no overwhelming evidence to support MLM and, more immediately, there is no justification to keeping it in the lead. It should be removed from the lead.

Andrew 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

A quick study indicates that no sources other than VanderSloot, himself, say specifically it isn't an MLM. We have some reliable sources which say that it is. Now, I agree, we do need to determine which of the reliable sources would have said it was an MLM if they believed it was, to determine whether it would be undue weight to include the statement that it is, but you have not proven your case. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's right -- in fact it's hard to imagine what that big long list is supposed to establish given that none of the sources except for VS himself are saying it isn't an MLM. For a big long list of sources that say it is, see here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The only apparent reason why anyone would argue against describing Melaleuca as an MLM company, despite the wealth of evidence to the contrary, is the belief that the term, which in reality is inherently neutral, somehow evokes negative reactions among consumers, and that those perceptions could negatively impact someone’s (i.e., VanderSloot’s and Melaleuca distributors’) bottom line. Thus, these vehement but completely baseless arguments for excluding the term, in the face of such overwhelming evidence that it applies to Melaleuca, violates WP:NPOV and is strongly suggestive of a conflict of interest.

As I’ve said before, this ridiculously tendentious argument to exclude the term MLM is equivalent to saying that a WP article should not mention that AIG sold collateralized debt obligations, even though multiple sources establish that they in fact did, because the term CDOs might evoke a negative reaction among investors. Non-evidence of the type that Andrewman327 posted above, is equivalent to saying that several articles mentioned that AIG sold “investment vehicles” but did not specifically mention CDOs, therefore the AIG article must not mention CDOs. Obviously such arguments are patently absurd.

Just for the record, the quotes provided above by Andrewman327 do not even indicate that VanderSloot denies that his company is an MLM. Vandersloot merely says that he doesn’t “want to be thrown in the multilevel bucket”, and that, essentially, Meleleuca is somehow not like Amway, neither of which even remotely resembles a denial that Melaleuca is an MLM, VanderSloot signed the Utah AGs affidavit stating that Melaleuca is an MLM – that’s official and on the record. His other statements appear to be mere obfuscations of the facts to serve the interests of his company. Vandersloot’s signing of that affidavit, along with detailed evidence from multiple sources across the spectrum (including recognized experts on MLM, the FTC, investigative reports, court documents, etc.) leaves no room for debate. In fact, we’ve already wasted far too much time belaboring this issue. The only “sources” that say Melaleuca isn’t an MLM are the 3 editors (George Louis, Collect, and Andrewman327) who have been campaigning since mid 2012 to whitewash the term (and, subsequently, everything else that could even remotely be construed as critical) from the article. Around that time, Collect went so far as to evoke WP:SPA/sockpuppets as evidence that there was prior consensus to support his whitewashing all mention of the term MLM from the aricle.

I also find it disturbing that whenever George Louis claims, in the midst of being rebuked for improper conduct (e.g., edit warring most recently), to be taking a break from editing, one of the other members of the conservative/VanderSloot PR spin-doctor contingent (e.g., Andrewman327 in this case), immediately moves over and takes the wheel, driving home the exact same tendentious arguments that George was trying to push. This is exactly the type of conduct that has prompted me to raise concerns about WP:TAGTEAM in the past.

(PS: Andrewman327, when providing hyperlinks the Talk page, enclose them in brackets without the reference template format, otherwise they don’t directly link to anything.) Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The majority of the 20 sources you cited do not refer to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing company in their leads. In fact, the way that the current article refers to the company in the lead isn't present anywhere in the literature, which a basic search of Google/EBSCO/ProQuest/Hoovers/etc will demonstrate. There has heretofore been minimal discussion regarding the lead. And, per your example, AIG's article has no reference to CDOs in its lead.

In a larger sense, there are important attributes of Melaleuca's business plan that you have been burying over the past two weeks in the interest of applying the MLM label at every opportunity instead of providing greater context or more specific information.

On another note, I am frustrated at the accusations that I am in league with other editors. As my user page says, I am always open to talk about my edits, and that's true. It makes as much sense to tell me I'm tagteaming as it does to say that I'm in league with the Chinese government. The two links you cite to 2012 discussions do not have anything to do with me. Every interaction I have ever had with any editor is publically available, with three exceptions for rejected AFC authors who e-mailed me. This is only one of the thousands of articles that I have edited this month. It is not constructive to the editing process to say that editors who disagree with you have conflict of interest. Andrew 18:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Andrewman327

“The majority of the 20 sources you cited do not refer to Melaleuca as a multilevel marketing company in their leads.”

Huh??? Red herring? When the sources mention Melaleuca, they refer to the company as an MLM; that’s all that matters, not the physical location of the text in the source article. The point is irrelevant.

“In fact, the way that the current article refers to the company in the lead isn't present anywhere in the literature…”

The fact is that Melaleuca is an MLM company. Are you splitting hairs about precisely how we should say “Melaleuca...a MLM company”. I don't see any ambiguity in the current version.

“There has heretofore been minimal discussion regarding the lead.”

We apparently have very different definitions of minimal. IMO we've wasted entirely too much time beating this dead horse already. What further discussion is needed?

“And, per your example, AIG's article has no reference to CDOs in its lead.”

The metaphor was used merely to illustrate the absurdity of arguing that the term MLM is defamatory simply because some people (who they may be, you never mentioned) may or may not have a negative opinion about MLMs. I really don’t understand why you are pursuing such tenuous arguments; it gets us nowhere and it makes the process more painful than it should be.

“In a larger sense, there are important attributes of Melaleuca's business plan that you have been burying over the past two weeks in the interest of applying the MLM label at every opportunity instead of providing greater context or more specific information.”

You misrepresented my activities. The term MLM is mentioned exactly TWICE in the entire article. It’s clear that I have not applied “the MLM label at every opportunity”. What precisely is it that you think I’ve been burying for 2 weeks and why are you focusing on me? The term MLM isn’t in the article solely because I think it should be there. Multiple editors have been discussing this for ages. You and George seem to be the only editors expressing any skepticism about the company’s status as an MLM. Consensus does not support that POV.

“On another note, I am frustrated at the accusations that I am in league with other editors…It is not constructive to the editing process to say that editors who disagree with you have conflict of interest.”

That has nothing to do with the MLM issue, so we can take that up on your talk page if you’d like. It’s not really appropriate to have a back and forth discussion about it here (c.f. WP:TPG). You already know my position regarding the connections of several editors with WP:WikiProject_Conservatism and the past attempt at canvassing the group for support; it set a bad precedent and is reasonable grounds for concern, particularly when the editing and opinions expressed by some of these editors have been tendentious to the extreme. To me, such tendentious editing on an article about an MLM company that has thousands of independent distributors is suggestive of a potential COI. WP:AGF aside, WP is not a a suicide pact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

The consensus seems to be at this point that the term "multi-level marketing" should be removed from the lede. Rhode Island Red, Nomoskedasticity, and Leef5 believe Melaleuca is an MLM, but Leef5 says he "will leave it to the active editors" whether that assertion should be mentioned in the lede. Others who expressed an opinon that either (1) Melaleuca is definitely not an MLM or (2) they are undecided or (3) they just don't want that fact in the lede even if true are GeorgeLouis, Andrew327 ("I see no reason for this in the lead'), Jeremy112233 ("Why is it in the lead?"), Arzel, Collect, ArthurRubin, HtownCat ("I think we have too many sources to proclaim Melaleuca as an MLM in the second sentence of the article") and Katnotario. If I have made a mistake, feel free to line out your name or comment below. Anyway, I am changing the lede accordingly. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You most certainly made a mistake, as there was no basis or consensus for removing the term MLM. Whether or not any of the editors here "believes" that Melaleuca is an MLM is irrelevant. The fact that it is an MLM is established by the sources that we have already discussed here ad nauseum. Railroading through your preferred version is not the way to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I fully support leaving the MLM mention in the career section where the companies are discussed in more detail; but I have no problem with the mention being dropped from the lead paragraph. In fact, I would say the lead should be trimmed to remove all the descriptions of the companies, only leaving their names. The details are secondary, not about the article subject (ie: the person), and are better suited for the career section that expands on the understanding of what was introduced in the lead. So, I would take the existing wording of the first paragraph:

Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company, headquartered in Idaho Falls, Idaho, which sells nutritional supplements, cleaning supplies, and personal-care products. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch, an award winning commercial ranch operation, and Riverbend Communications, a group of broadcast radio stations in Eastern Idaho. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.

I would rewrite as:

Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch and Riverbend Communications. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.

Although, if others object to purging the descriptions of the companies, then the MLM mention should remain in the lead as well so that the full appropriate description exists.

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Barek's approach, as this is a BLP article, and not an article about Melaleuca. It appears there is enough material here to create a separate Melaleuca article where a lot of these debates could continue and not WP:COATRACK it here.  Leef5   17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Lead is probably a bit top heavy with details, but a descriptor of Melaleuca is necessary in the lead so that the reader has some idea of the nature of the company. "Cattle rancher", "radio network owner", etc. are self explanatory. "CEO of Melaleuca" is not. WP:LEAD says: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences." There are more than 20 reliable sources establishing Melaleuca as an MLM, so it would seem improper to not reflect this in the lead, as per the guidelines. The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM is a critical deatil that has been stressed by those sources. In other words, it is not a trivial aspect.

I figured that the suggestion to spin off a separate article on Melaleuca would come up eventually, since the details that were added about the company over the last couple of months really have nothing to do with VanderSloot. It seems that much of the material was added as filler to dilute the less than flattering details. However, even if it is spun off as a separate article, that doesn't mean that the critiques will vanish from VanderSloot's article, which I infer would might be the ultimate goal of some of the editors here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Stating that he was "founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc" is more than adequate to describe the subject of the article. He was founder and CEO of a company. As you pointed out, WP:LEAD states "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic" ... that last word is critical: the topic/subject of the article is the person, not the company. Being an MLM is an important aspect about the company, not the person. It's important to recognize the distinction between the two.

As I said, the MLM mention is most certainly appropriate in the career section that expands upon an understanding of the company for which he was CEO. And that mention would most certainly be appropriate if the company were ever spun-off into its own article (in which case, MLM would belong both here in the career section and in the spun-off article.

All that said ... I honestly don't care enough about either the company nor the person enough to debate this. I only have this article on my watchlist due to edit warring complaints in the past. My opinion is out there - if others want to agree, fine - if not, that's fine too. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your contributions to the discussion here, but there is a flaw in that argument. Many sources have written detailed articles about VanderSloot that prominently feature the MLM aspect in their coverage; these are not articles on Melaleuca but rather on Vandersloot. If they deem that MLM is worthy of including in the discussion of VanderSloot, then it is not our place to say that it's not relevant. We have to take our lead from the sources themselves. Hope that provides some clarity. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually -- it is up to the editors here per WP:CONSENSUS to choose placement of claims and weight given thereto. The lede does not contain every factoid in the BLP, nor ought it do so. We can make an MLM claim in the text, but that does not mean it should be iterated in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Please note this thread is not about any "factoid" or "claim". Writegeist (talk) 21:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages, the word "claim" refers to anything written in any article. "Factoid" simply means a minor fact - one not of earth-shaking importance to the subject of a BLP. Minor facts do not belong in the lede. The lede is supposed to be a summary of the BLP contents. In Wikispeak: The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. Note the words "most important." It is up WP:CONSENSUS to value claims as to being important or unimportant. Is this clear? Collect (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It's highly disingenuous to keep steadfastly insisting that the MLM detail is minor when it has been established that it is not. It is a central defining feature of the company that has been discussed by more than 20 sources and acknowledged by VanderSloot himself. When you keep ignoring the facts in support of the POV you are pushing (i.e. that Melaleuca is not an MLM), it makes achieving a reasonable consensus next to impossible. That's a problem that has plagues this article since mid 2012. A review of the history of the discussion about the company's MLM status (dating back to mid 2012) makes it clear that the POV you and George have been pushing has nothing to do with facts, evidence, reliability of sources, or WP policy. It's just that you believe the term is unflattering and that, for that reason alone, it is OK to whitewash it from the article. That is indicative of a serious misunderstanding of WP:NPOV at least, and a WP:COI issue at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

How is this MLM claim important to a biography of a living person. Do you wish us to say he was the one who started the company deliberately and specifically as an MLM? That he somehow makes MLM a key part of his business plans? What, precisely, makes it an important fact about the person? Note that the claim may well be present in the body of the article, but the lede is specifically supposed to contain the most important information about the person. So far, you have not demonstrated that it is directly and personally important to the biography. Can you explain exactly why it is important to VanderSloot personally? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I wish us to say nothing other than what multiple sources have identified as notable about Vandersloot -- that he is the founder and CEO of an MLM company by the name of Melaleuca. It's not just any old run-of-the-mill company but an MLM company specifically, as emphasized by multiple sources that stressed this point in particular while reporting on Vandersloot, thereby conclusively establishing notability. It's just that simple. I already quoted the significant parts of WP:LEAD that establish the basis for why it has remained in the lead for the better part of the past year. I hate to bring up the subject of POV pushing but it bears pointing out that you (and George Louis) have argued vociferously to purge the term MLM from the article entirely since mid 2012, and have continued to do so even as the evidence against your POV mounted, which suggests to me that you have more than a casual interest in the matter.

First, you tried to out-argue other editors who opposed your POV, and you didn't even bother to look for any sources then would have supported ther position (I was later able, with very little effort, to find 20+ sources that did so) -- and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". When that approach failed, you argued that the company isn't an MLM at all, then you quibbled about sources, and finally, now that you have expended all this effort for naught campaigning to purge the term, your new tack is to argue that the detail is too insignificant to warrant being mentioned. It's been a series of steadily eroding nit-picking arguments culminating in this last attempt, which has been aided by SPAs and edit warring. The entire approach belies a non-neutral POV on the matter.

Melaleuca is an MLM -- numerous sources establish this as a fact for WP purposes, and at this point no one is even trying to argue that it isn't. The sources demonstrate that this fact is directly relevant in a discussion about Vandersloot himself and not merely in a discussion about Melaleuca. There is absolutely zero potential for violating any WP policy or harming the encyclopedic integrity of WP by referring to Melaleuca as an "MLM company" in the lead or elsewhere. The MLM "issue" may be of greater PR consequence for those who peddle Melaleuca products for a living, but WP doesn't bend to accommodate such interests when they run counter to editorial and policy objectives. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

IOW you do not wish to answer my question - other than to attack me for a POV which I do not have. I have no connection direct or indirect with VanderSloot, Meleleuca, anyone mentioned in this article, or anything remotely connected to this article. You give absolutely no reason for the term being in the lede at all -- unless, of course, every fact should be in the lede. But WP:LEDE goes against that odd position. Further note that I am not trying to excise "MLM" only noting that it is not needed in the lede, so histrionics about this are silly. Nor have I removed anything related to "MLM" from the article. You have 174 edits to this article - I have a total of 15 edits here. The issue boils down to: While MLM is in the body of the article, does it have sufficient importance to be in the lede? That is all that is being discussed - not absurd claims that I support socks, or tagteams or anything at all on that order. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To claim an editor accused you of "supporting" sock puppets when he or she did no such thing is an egregious misrepresentation of the editor's position (RIR merely said, rightly or wrongly, that you cited SPAs and sockpuppets, so your histrionics about this are silly), and constitutes a clear personal attack, which I trust you will now withdraw. To identify Melaleuca as an MLM is no more a "claim" than it is to identify Obama as President of the United States. To, er, claim otherwise is fatuously, um, errant. That Melaleuca is a multi-level marketing company is neither trivial nor (factoid's other common meaning, as you will know) an invented fact. Claim #1 -- fails. Claim #2 -- fails. Claim #3 -- fails. Hat trick! Writegeist (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He wrote and instead you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM". which sure looks to me like he thinks I support socks. In point of fact I have not "cited" socks or SPAs, and I find your appearance here to be ... interesting. In Misplaced Pages, anything at all about someone or something is a "claim" and your apparent belief that Misplaced Pages uses the wrong word is useless. This is the word generally used on Misplaced Pages. Collect (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I note you now admit that what RIR actually wrote was not at all, in fact, that you supported socks but that you cited them; and that you now say that when you read what he wrote it looks to you as if he is thinking something else altogether, an imaginary something to which you object. Thus, curiously, you defend your right to attack another editor not for his actual comments but for whatever you care to say he was thinking when he wrote them—a somewhat idiosyncratic interpretation of WP:NPA, as NPA does not, AFAICT, allow you to attack other editors for what you choose to say they are thinking. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

And what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood. The consensus included some editors who were later accused of being socks, but as I had no way of assuming bad faith, as you seem to wish, I looked at the overall clear consensus on the issue at the time. Given what appears to be a consensus, that is what WP:CONSENSUS tells us to do. You apparently feel that one ought to automatically assume bad faith - such as noting that a nameless person who has not done anything other than appear to post attacking me on a talk page may not be actually seeking to improve the article. Cheers -- now do you have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If your post ("what you assert happens to be a palpable falsehood . . . ") is, as appears from the indent, a reply to mine about the fact that RIR commented that you cited socks, which you yourself immediately confirmed as palpably true with "He wrote . . . 'you cited . . . sock puppets' " it's just hilariously absurd. If it is a reply to someone else, perhaps you would like to clarify who that is. Do I have any suggestions on improving this BLP? Yes: I suggest its improvement would best be handled by the various intelligent and objective editors who have demonstrated a real grasp of the subject matter, and also of policies, guidelines and simple logic, and who would not misrepresent scrupulous accuracy as, e.g., "palpable falsehood". Not that I expect this suggestion will be taken up, of course; but you did ask. Another suggestion, for which I though my support was clear and unequivocal, is to retain the fact that the company is an MLM in the lead, for the compelling reasons laid out by RIR et al. Is that clear now? Writegeist (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

In point of fact Collect, you most certainly did cite SPAs/socks as evidence of a consensus supporting a purge of the term MLM from the article. In reference to my restoration of “MLM” to the article, you claimed the following:

“This is to discuss whether consensus has changed - as one editor appears to wish…” Collect (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)”

That so-called "consensus" Collect referred to was based on shallow inaccurate comments from 3 SPA/sock puppets. and he proceeded to edit war on that basis, attempting to purge MLM from the article. I did not draw any conclusions about the underlying actions of that claim of consensus, but logic would dictate that there are only 2 possibilities: (a) Collect knew that they were socks and SPAs and claimed consensus based on input that he knew was tainted, or (b) Collect did not know they were socks/SPAs because he failed to make even a cursory attempt to find out who the comments were coming from, in which case he should have apologized and retreated after the facts were pointed out to him -- but he (and George Louis) doubled down instead. This is uncannily similar to what happened in just the past week. After vehemently arguing to purge MLM from the article, George gets nailed for violating 3RR and announces he's taking a week-long wikibreak; SPA suddenly appears out of nowhere to delete the term MLM from the article; George ends his wikibreak prematurely to shower that SPA with wikilove and then adds a claim that I "bit the head off the newcomer" to his ridiculous witch-hunt roster of my alleged misdeeds. As I've said before, these editors have used every means possible to game the system in favor of the POV they are pushing. It is strongly indicative of a non-NPOV at least and WP:COI at worst. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

On what grounds should I have automatically assumed bad faith of these editors? And what were the results of the SPI investigations which clearly showed all of them to be socks? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) By the way - as they do not appear to be labeled as "socks" by anyone but you, I would suggest you tone down your rhetoric. If no one labels someone as a sock, it is idiotic to say I must have known them to be socks. Is that clear? See WP:AGF and WP:NPA while you are at it -- calling editors whome you do not like "socks" without even filing an SPI report is raher inane. Collect (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Since you are choosing to belabor and obfuscate the issue, I am compelled to expound further. When I initially brought this serious issue to your attention, I clearly stated that these SPA accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”, rather than saying that they were confirmed socks, so don’t pretend that you don’t know what the real issue is. You choose to quibble about whether or not any of the users in question were confirmed socks while failing to admit that they were clearly and unequivocally SPAs, and that you should have known better that to cite them as part of a consensus supporting you edit warring and attempt to whitewash “MLM” from the article. WP:SPA states:

“Experienced editors often scrutinize the editing activities of new editors and single-purpose accounts to determine whether they are here to build an encyclopedia (perhaps needing help and advice), or whether they are editing for promotion, advocacy or other unsuitable agendas. Although the community seeks to attract new and well-informed users knowledgeable in a particular subject, Misplaced Pages is not a platform for advocacy.”

Aside from that, one or more of the accounts in question fits the M.O. of a sock listed in WP:SIGNS (see “Possible signs”). Furthermore, WP:CAST states:

“Whether or not a sock puppet, those who follow the leader and just go along with what someone else says do not help advance the cause of the discussion. Such votes are generally discounted when determining the outcome of the discussion.”

It does not matter whether you and/or George Louis were directly colluding with any of these accounts or whether you just blithely cited them as representing a valid consensus, without doing the expected due diligence, because they conveniently supported the skewed POV you were attempting to push. The heart of the matter is that you have been working aggressively to purge MLM from the article since mid-2012; you have done so in a manner that contravenes the policies, GLs, and spirit of WP to an extent that can easily be characterized as WP:GAMING and WP:DE/WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to call someone a "sock", be man enough to accuse them in the proper venue. I have not "contravened" policies here - and your tirade is of nugatory value to this article talk page. And please stop citing essays as being policies - it ill suits polite discourse. And your insinuation that I "collude" with anyone is asinine, silly, inane, improper, errant, ill-annered, and egregiously objectionable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As so often seems to be the case, you are refusing to get the point. Again, I have made it clear that these were obvious SPAs and suspected socks. I quoted the relevant policies/GLs that outline (a) the expectations of WP editors with respect to scrutinizing SPAs and suspected socks (e.g., not citing them as representing a consensus to support your POV) and (b) when suspicion about SPA status is warranted. As I already explained above, on the surface these SPA accounts fit the general WP criteria of suspected socks, but in addition all 3 accounts were opened in May-June 2007 (with a small handful of random edits on pages unrelated to Vandersloot) and then were essentially dormant for years prior to whitewashing content from the article and POV pushing/soapboxing on the MLM discussion on the Vandersloot Talk page in mid-2012.

I reiterate, it was plainly evident that these were SPAs; it is likely that they are socks as well. In either case, you were remiss in citing them in support of your attempt to scrub "MLM" from the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not say "suspected" or "likely" - you outright called them "socks" and that is contrary to WP:AGF. So for once and for all -- either file an SPI or drop your claim. And again since I did not say to "scrub MLM from the article" you are making ad hominem arguments which are not intended to improve the article. What you are doing is making personal attacks on each of the people you call "socks" without being man enough to file a complaint. That is unworthy behaviour. Collect (talk) 12:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

First, as I already pointed out, it is clear you already know that my position is that these are suspected socks rather than confirmed socks. I made this clear when I originally brought your attention to the matter last summer (after you cited them as evidence of a consensus that didn’t exist to justify your attempts at purging “MLM” from the article). I stated at that time that these accounts were “looking an awful lot like sock puppets”. I have since made my position even more clear by saying explicitly several times that these are suspected socks. The characteristics of those 3 accounts strongly suggest that they are socks. If you would like to comprehensively address your past user conduct issues in railroading through tendentious edits on the basis of SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets, then I’m game. Since you are unrepentant and still trying to railroad through the same changes, admin scrutiny and intervention would probably be a good idea. In which venue would you like me to report you?

While we’re on the subject of admin intervention for user conduct, can you not recognize your own hypocrisy in complaining about alleged “personal attacks”, which in reality consisted nothing more than expressing concern that 3 SPAs might be sock puppets, and then in the same breath making a clear personal attack against my manhood. You are leaping into an abyss of user conduct issues here. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You did not qualify your use of "sock" and further you did not show that everyone who disagrees with you is an SPA either. And "being man enough" is a metaphor and says nothing whatsoever about your actual "manhood" so you can drop that as an arguemnt here entirely. I rather think most people do not interpret metaphors as literally as you seem to do. And you did far more than "express a concern that ... may be sock puppets you specifically said I supported them.

you cited SPAs and sock puppets as evidence of a consensus supporting the purge of "MLM".

it is likely that they are socks as well

SPA accounts that fit the profile of sock puppets

Are your exact words above -- I would point out that I have now been online for three decades, and under contract identified a number of "socks" and you are stretching to think that one essay makes you qualified to call any other editor a "sock" and not follow through at SPI about it. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Refusing to get the point on several fronts I see. I'm disappointed that you think it's OK to make a personal attack as long as it is couched in a metaphor. Just remember that if I ever slip up and inadvertently say that you are behaving like a WP:DICK. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Some thoughts on consensus. While WP:CON tips its hat towards users like RIR with 'the quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view', it also says 'Consensus is an ongoing process on Misplaced Pages; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise – with the understanding that the page is gradually improving – than to try to fight to implement a particular "perfect" version immediately'; and 'In 2012, a group of researchers studying Misplaced Pages disputes reported: "Debates rarely conclude on the basis of merit; typically they are ended by outside intervention, sheer exhaustion, or the evident numerical dominance of one group."

I've followed the (numerous) arguments here for some time (noting, in passing, the use of the dramaboards against the participant whose comments, for the most part, IMO, exhibit the most incisive understanding of the various issues), and I've checked the sources. I'm persuaded: it's as plain as a pikestaff that Melaleuca is verifiably an MLM and that the mention belongs in the lead, even though its exclusion, given GeorgeLouis's comments on consensus, is unavoidable, at least unless/until outside editors take an interest in the article. (Village pump, anybody?)

Oh, and "The quality of articles with combative editors is, as a rule, far lower than that of articles where editors take a longer view." Hope this helps. Writegeist (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, as far as consensus is concerned, George has misrepresented Arthur Rubin, and Arzel has not in fact expressed a view. George's analysis of consensus is rather off target, and I suggest that he is not well placed to make that sort of judgement. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a better way of doing this? I'm of the opinion that it should be removed from the lead because it is not a major part of the article, and a fuller description of the company is more appropriate in the company's section, not the lead. I am certain I will be hounded once again for suggesting things here, but can we have a structured vote on this, allowing all to insert their opinions alongside their votes, at least to try and move towards a consensus? Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

A better way would be to not push a non-neutral POV. A vote, in this situation especially, would not be a valid means of establishing consensus. Compelling arguments are what matters and none have been raised to justify the whitewashing of MLM from the article. Repeatedly using the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT approach is pointless. WP:LEAD clearly justifies the mention of MLM; it's a key feature of the company that has been described by roughly 2 dozen sources and officially acknowledged by Vanderslot himself. The MLM aspect in the body text has been diluted and pushed down by the addition of extraneous details about the company, provided by the same editors that have been leading the whitewash campaign. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As always, I understand you have a strong opinion on this :) , but that's not what I asked. I asked if we can determine an actual consensus on the particular point of including it in the lead, not whether or not you felt it mattered. As this has stirred up some conversation, what are the best steps to finding a consensus--where you can voice as strong an opinion as you wish about keeping it in the lead. If you see it as so obvious, then I'm sure you trust the consensus will go your way, and the issue can be put to bed either way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

It is obvious; that VanderSloot is the founder of Melaleuca; that Melaleuca is an MLM, and that it's the most signficant fact about Melaleuca. If Melaleuca is in the lead, so should the fact that it's an MLM. But I'm not good at judging consensus. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hammer. Nail. Head. Writegeist (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a step back for a moment. Corporate business models don't belong in leads. It is uncommon for reliable secondary sources about either VanderSloot or Melaleuca to refer to the company as an MLM in the lead, as I established in my 50+ citation post above. As a matter of fact, barely any of the 20 articles cited as supporting the MLM claim actually refer to Melaleuca as an MLM in their lead paragraphs. There is very little precedent on or off Wiki for the lead to be written as it is now. I would like to see more fresh eyes on this article, and as an admin with over 50,000 edits, Barek represents an ideal source. I like the lead that Barek proposed and believe that it should be implemented.

There is another issue that I would like to address. One claim that has been repeatedly made is that VanderSloot has said that the company is an MLM, which is not true. At one point, he signed a voluntary agreement that said that the Idaho Attorney General had that opinion. Recently, VanderSloot asked the same AG's office for an opinion on Melaleuca and they responded with a generally favorable letter. VanderSloot has explicitly denied that Melaleuca is an MLM several times, notably in a published letter to Forbes: "We were surprised at the suggestion that Melaleuca is a "pyramid-selling organization" along the lines of Herbalife and Amway in "If You Believe" (Oct. 11, p. 89). That's as misleading as suggesting that a cow is similar to a cat just be-cause both are four-legged mammals. Whatever the similarities between cats and cows, they do not make cats bovine nor cows feline. It's the many differences in our business model and culture that set Melaleuca apart from any multilevel marketing company. Painting Melaleuca as a pyramid-selling organization suggests that you don't understand the vital differences between these two divergent business models." Vandersloot, Frank L. 2004. "Uncowed." Forbes 174, no. 10: 28. (accessed January 24, 2013).

Editors may be confusing Melaleuca Inc. with Oil of Melaleuca, about which VanderSloot has been quite negative. To wit: "It was a multi-level company selling starter kits for $57 a pop, but if you bought $5,000 worth, you could rise to the top of the pyramid" (Melaleuca CEO: Dark days proved worthwhile).

Andrew 02:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

No, let's not step back -- move forward instead.

There was not a single valid point in that post; namely:

1. Using a flawed opening premise that “corporate business models don't belong in leads”, when in fact there is absolutely no policy, precedent, or logical reason for claiming that MLM should be excluded from the lead; quite the contrary in fact according to WP:LEAD (NB: it helps to actually read and absorb WP policies and GLs before arguing about them).
2. Failing to acknowledge the 20+ sources that identify Melaleuca as an MLM, while instead fallaciously citing absence of evidence in other sources as evidence of absence.
3. Arbitrarily dismissing Vandersloots’s official acknowledgement to the Utah AG that Melaleuca Inc. is an MLM -- an acknowledgement that Vandersloot signed voluntarily.
4. The misrepresentation of Vandersloot’s comment about Amway, which in fact was an attempt to distance his company from Amway but did not claim that Melaleuca is not an MLM.
5. Making a vague accusation that editors (who you conveniently failed to identify) are confusing Melaleuca with Vandersloot’s previous company, when in fact there is no evidence whatsoever to support such a speculative accusation; rather, we keep pointing to the 20+ sources that refer specifically to Melaleuca Inc. as an MLM – sources which you are conveniently ignoring.

The fact that Melaleuca is an MLM has been firmly established. Arguing the contrary is pointless backtracking and a waste of resources. The discussion about this aspect of the company has now devolved into quizzical nitpicking about the lead (i.e., the ludicrous suggestion that including 3 words -- multi-level marketing -- somehow makes the lead too top-heavy and violates policy). The level of effort being expended by a couple of pugnacious editors here to whitewash the term MLM entirely from the article (which has been going on since mid-2012) clearly goes well beyond a mere passion for concisely written leads. It is indicative of POV pushing to serve an agenda that is at cross purposes with that of WP. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Avoid details in the lede

This is a new section because I'd like to specifically address the proposed version by User:Barek. He has suggested removing the descriptions of VanderSloot's various business operations from the lede, specifically suggesting that it read as follows:

Frank L. VanderSloot (born August 14, 1948) is an American entrepreneur, radio network owner, rancher, and political campaign financier. He is the founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca, Inc. His other business interests include Riverbend Ranch and Riverbend Communications. VanderSloot also serves on the board of directors and executive board of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. In 2011, the Land Report listed him as the nation’s 92nd largest landowner.

His suggestion does not bother with the question as to whether Melaleuca is or is not a multi-level marketing business. Editors of the article are divided on this point, but it would seem that everybody could agree on the statement that Barek proposed just above. That agreement would be the epitome of WP:Consensus. Barek's suggestion has the advantage of simplicity and thoroughness (all of VDS's business enterprises are mentioned, but exposition is left for the body of the article). What's more, it avoids the contentiousness that has been suffusing this article for quite some time. I note that

Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

In short, it seems that consensus is not needed to remove contentious material. I guess anybody could do it, but it might be better if an administrator were to take it upon himself or herself to do so. If Barek does not want to, perhaps another seasoned editor could be recruited. Thus I am listing this discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

If Melaleuca is mentioned in the lead, it should be mentioned that it is an MLM in the lead. If not, then obviously not. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I see some lies above, not necessarily due to Misplaced Pages editors. There is absolutely no dispute that Melaleuca is an MLM.

The "trimmed down" lead has no encyclopedic information. It would be better to report in the lead that "... founder and chief executive officer of an MLM company" than "... founder and chief executive officer of Melaleuca". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Again we have a thread devoted to a faulty premise. WP:LEAD does not say to "avoid detail". Quite the opposite in fact; it says that "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview", and it's not as though anyone has proposed expanding mention of MLM in the lead beyond the inclusion of the mere 3 words (or two and half words depending on how you count hyphens) -- "multi-level marketing". The lead stands at about 2 1/2 paragraphs right now and the GLs say that it should not exceed 4 paragraphs, so it's not top-heavy at all. The idea that whitewashing MLM from the lead would improve the lead by making it more concise is absurd, and mere brevity is clearly not the underlying intent of the editors (George Louis, Collect, and Andrewman 327) who, since mid-2012, have been campaigning relentlessly (and in defiance of evidence) for purging the term from the article entirely. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hooha- you seem to make false statements about my position once more. I have never sought to "whitewash" this BLP, nor to remove material from the body of the BLP. Thus your claim is errant and wrong, and, IMO, egregiously false. As to my position on article length - in general shorter is better. Bloated articles serve no one at all. See Joseph Widney now at about 62K in size vs. the same article before I reduced its size (over 140K). Collect (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

That's flat out nonsense! You've deleted MLM from the article on more than one occasion. How can we possibly excuse such a patently false claim? Your personal position on bloated articles is irrelevant because WP has its own policies and GLs that apply. I've already pointed out that the lead is quite a bit under the 4 paragraph limit recommended in WP:LEAD, which also specifies that the lead should be a stand alone summary of the content in the body text of the article. I'll say it again -- your argument is tendentious in the extreme and is not supported by policies or GLs; it is however entirely consistent with your longstanding efforts to censor the article. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I think Arthur Rubin's edit just now () is a nice one and much to be preferred. Saying that he is the founder of "Melaleuca" does not enlighten anyone who does not already know what Melaleuca is. Likewise with the other two businesses. Much better to use a brief phrase that indicates the nature of the business. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, almost nobody in the literature has ever referred to the company in that way, even in articles that go on to call Melaleuca an MLM. It's a large company that manufactures household goods and dietary supplements. It would be like saying Henry Ford founded a franchise-dealership company .Andrew 19:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Almost nobody" meaning the 20+ sources you are conveniently ignoring. Tsk tsk. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion is ongoing at the BLP noticeboard]. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that, and it's silly because the editors commenting there are the same ones that are commenting here. Forking the discussion serves no useful purpose -- it's counterproductive. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually your charge is inapt. BLP concerns are properly listed at the WP:BLP/N noticeboard. Always have been. Always will be. Cheers - it was a BLP/N discussion which led me here in the first place. Collect (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Q: Who has contributed to the discussion at BLPN? A: You, me, and George Louis. Get the point now? Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You and George kicked up quite a fuss about this article and have forum shopped to no end fishing for support. As a result, you got two new very experienced editors commenting (Arthur Rubin and Writegeist), and because they are unequivocally disagreeing with George's and your position, it's back to the forum shop. Play the hand you were dealt; don't ask for a mulligan every time. It's a needless waste of resources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your desire to attack editors is clear. I wish you had the same desire to tell the gd truth though. You have had plenty of mulligans in your attacks now - it is time you were person enough to stop them. Collect (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an attack; it's a simple statement of fact. The article has received the additional scrutiny that you and George sought, as a result of the arrival of 2 veteran editors who had no previous involvement, and now that they disagree with your position, you're in effect dismissing the input and continuing to seek the answer you want via forum shopping. That epitomizes WP:DE and refusal to get the point. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

primary sources

Not a journalist

The Chang letter is not a valid source as it is a "primary source" about a non-notable person *Ms. Chang is not a noted "journalist" and absent a source for that claim, it is barred by WP:BLP. I find no reliable sources making that claim which do not trace back to her in the first place. Collect (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest reading this and reverting yourself -- at least insofar as she is named as one of VS's targets. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Collect, you're embarrassing yourself by reverting before reading the source I suggested to you. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Chang is mentioned specifically as one of Vaandersloot's defamation targets (and identified as a "journalist") in the secondary sources cited. The primary source (i.e. Melaleuca's letters to Chang) is from a reputable source (Salon Magazine) and are perfectly acceptable according to WP policy. Collect's deletion of this material, for which there was no basis, has been reverted. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You have now edit warred five times in under 24 hours on this BLP, RIR. I have now asked you three times to self-revert. Collect (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

It's really hard to admit an error/oversight, isn't it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

And snark !- discussion, Nomo. How many requests to self-revert ought it take? Collect (talk) 16:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

None. There is no reason whatsoever to self-revert. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Apology

My apology for making this unwarranted change here. Greenwald did mention Chang. Mea culpa. Nevertheless, this paragraph could do with a lot more work to indicate who mentioned whom instead of lumping all the sources at the end. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. FTR, she's also in this one. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 02:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

EFF editorial blog

!= reliable source for calling Chang a "journalist." The sources I do find call her a founder of "pridedepot.com" which is not a "reliable source". Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more to say in the previous section, Collect?? Any more reverts coming? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Only if RIR recognizes that 5RR is under 24 hours is unwise. Collect (talk) 16:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there a relevant point about the EFF lurking somewhere in Collect's incomprehensible post? Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Wives

VanderSloot lives in Idaho Falls, Idaho, with his wife of 17 years, Belinda VanderSloot. Together they have fourteen children: six from Frank VanderSloot’s two prior marriages, and eight from Belinda VanderSloot’s first marriage. VanderSloot was previously married to Kathleen VanderSloot (née Zundel), his first wife, and Vivian VanderSloot, his third wife.

While I appreciate we can only go by what the sources say, the above seems fairly unclear to me. Has he had 4 wives or 3? Presuming we aren't talking about polygynous marriages (which aren't recognised in any state in the US hence why I'm presuming), is Belinda both the second and fourth wive (in other words they married two times), or only the fourth; and the second is simply unnamed? The source used doesn't seem to clarify, in fact it doesn't seem to mention Kathleen or Zundel at all. It does imply that he had children from the third and first marriages meaning that presuming the earlier source and the unsourced claim is accurate the children with Frank are Kathleen's and Vivian's not whoever the second wife is. Nil Einne (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Frank and Kathleen Zundel had a son -- Brian, the 3rd child from VanderSloot's first marriage. By deduction, VS has been married at least 4 times, but that's speculative so the article doesn't draw that conclusion; just the facts reported by the sources. Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Electronic Frontier Foundation

I removed a reference to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, added here, because none of the sources that allegedly named it (Greenwald, Maddow, Bodnar, LGBT Weekly, Salon and National Journal) actually did so, and it itself is not a WP:Reliable source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean none of the sources named the EFF? That makes no sense whatsoever and is not a valid reason for deleting the reference. The EFF article directly backs up the statement for which it was cited.

"According to Rachel Maddow, the National Journal, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the online magazine Salon, VanderSloot has threatened defamation lawsuits, copyright infringement and similar legal action against critics and outlets that have published critical views, including Maddow, Forbes magazine, lawyer Glenn Greenwald, Mother Jones magazine, and Idaho independent journalist Jody May-Chang.

As for reliability, the Electronic Frontier Foundation would seem to meet WP:RS in general but especially so in this context. It is an “international non-profit digital rights group” that has been widely cited in the press in the context of internet-related legal issues, like SLAPP, of the type covered in the WP VanderSloot article. There is nothing in WP:QS that precludes it. Furthermore, the statement in question the Vandersloot article is accompanied by multiple citations, so no statements in the WP article rest solely on the EFF. Lastly, WP:SOURCE says:

“Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source.”

That’s an apt description of the EFF, whose primary expertise and responsibility is “checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments”. No basis for deletion of this source. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a notice at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Electronic_Frontier_Foundation. GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

As you wish but I don't see why it was necessary to do so at this early juncture. I provided a detailed explanation justifying the inclusion of the source and addressing your assertions, and you chose to completely ignore it. Jumping to the noticeboards without addressing comments on the talk page is a circumvention of process (WP:BRD). In the absence of a reasonable explanation, this appears to be a case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Date glitch re: dates for Oil of Melaleuca, Inc, and Melaleuca, Inc.

Just noticed that there was conflicting chronological information in the article regarding Vandersloot's tenure at Oil of Melaleua, Inc. and the date of inception of Meleleuca, Inc. The article stated that Vandersloot took the helm of Oil of Melaleuca in September 1985, and then it went on to state that Melaleuca was started in 1985 "5 months after" the closure of Oil of Melaleuca. Those dates don't jibe obviously, as 5 months after September 1985 (which is when VS joined Oil of Meleleuca) would be 1986. The article has been revised and the part about "5 months after" has been removed, as the detail is wonky and it's not necessary to contextualize the start date of Melaleuca Inc. (1985) relative to Oil of Melaleuca. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

1. IBR Staff (April 10, 2006). "Idaho Falls-based Melaleuca continues 20-year growth streak, sales top $702M". Idaho Business Review.
2. "Melaleuca: Enhancing People's Lives One Customer at a Time (cover story)". Caribbean Business 34 (2). 19 January 2006.
3. Curtis, Bruce. "Direct-Marketing Company Target Part Timers." Tulsa World, 1993, 5-5.
4. Marissa Bodnar, "VanderSloot Responds to Allegations of Threatening Media," KIFI Local News 8, posted February 21, 2012; updated March 1, 2012, screen 2
5. Strassel, Kimberley A. "Strassel: Trolling for Dirt on the President's List; First a Romney Supporter Was Named on an Obama Campaign Website. That Was Followed by the Slimy Trolling into a Citizen's Private Life." Wall Street Journal (Online), 2012.
6. Popkey, Dan (October 6, 2006). "Twilegar is the best, but that may not be enough". Idaho Statesman. Retrieved September 25, 2012.
7. Trillhaase, Marty (May 27, 2010). "VanderSloot won Supreme Court race". Lewiston Morning Tribune. Retrieved September 17, 2102. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
8. THE RACHEL MADDOW SHOW for February 20, 2012, MSNBC
9. "Melaleuca, Inc". Hoovers. D&B. 2012. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
10. Orbis (2008). "Melaleuca". Orbis Company Information.
11. Melaleuca, Inc.: Consumer Packaged Goods Company Profile & SWOT Report. Canadean. 2012.
12. "Melaleuca Inc. Industry Details". The Million Dollar Database. D&B. 2012.
13. Brad, Carlson. "CEO of Idaho Falls-Based Melaleuca Inc. Says Revenues, Sales Force on Rise." Idaho Business Review, 2009.
14. IBR, Staff. "Boise chamber to host Melaleuca CEO." Idaho Business Review (Boise, ID) 3/30/2009: 18 Jan. 2013.
15. Carlson, Brad. "A Statewide Building Boom In Idaho/ICR." Idaho Business Review (Boise, ID) (Dec 18, 2006): Web. 18 Jan. 2013.
16. IBR, Staff Report. "Idaho Falls-Based Melaleuca Continues 20-Year Growth Streak, Sales Top $702M." The Idaho Business Review (2006)
17. Rose, Peter. "Melaleuca Expands into Canada." The Idaho Business Review 13, no. 27 (1994): 10-10.
18. Lofton, Dewanna. "Nature Kick Retailers Meet Need for Health Enhancers." The Commercial Appeal, 1999, 0-C.1.
19. Gardner, Larry. "Idaho's Melaleuca Ranked No. 5 in Absolute Dollar Growth." The Idaho Business Review 12, no. 48 (1993): 0-18A.
20. Ferrendelli, Betta. "Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year: Melaleuca Thrives on Well-Oiled Direct-Marketing Plan." Puget Sound Business Journal 22, no. 6 (2001): 30-30.
21. Hannon, David. "Midmarket Consumer Products Firm Focuses on Supplier Success." Purchasing 135, no. 18 (2006): 46-46.
22. Menser, Paul. "Melaleuca Adds 843 Jobs in 5 Years." Post Register, December 26, 2007.
23. Towns, Hollis R. "Knocking on Doors Again - Direct Selling Provides the Extra Cash Many Need." The Atlanta Journal and The Atlanta Constitution, 1992, E/1.
24. Fried, John. "Inc.com Hall of Fame Profile: Frank L. Vandersloot". October 15, 2004
25. "Health Products Manufacturer Opens Call Center." Associated Press, 19 August 2000.
26. Bodnar, Marissa. "Melaleuca Celebrates $1 Billion in Annual Sales." NBC 8, 23 December 2011.
27. "Melaleuca Inc., the Producer of Cosmetics, Household." Associated Press Newswires, 9 November 2004.
28. "Blackfoot, Idaho (Ap) - Members of the Carvogal Family Are Finding Shelter From" Associated Press Newswires, 20 September 2005.
29. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/01/us/politics/campaign-finance-reports-show-super-pac-donors.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
30. "Ballpark Effort Gets Cash Infusion from Idaho Falls Businessman." Associated Press Newswires, 5 October 2005.
31. "Idahoan Aims to Buy 6 Bonneville Stations." Deseret Morning News, 26 December 2005.
32. "Melaleuca to Open Supermarket in Shanghai." SinoCast China Business Daily News, 14 April 2006.
33. Carlson, Brad. "A Statewide Building Boom in Idaho/Icr." Idaho Business Review, 18 December 2006.
34. "Melaleuca Inc. Obtains Direct Sales License." China Industry Daily News, 17 December 2007.
35. Silence, Michael. "Company Plans 14-Acre Expansion at Forks of the River Industrial Park." The Knoxville News-Sentinel (MCT), 15 January 2008.
36. "E. Idaho Company Breaks Ground on New Plant." Associated Press Newswires, 4 July 2009.
37. "Brief: Groundbreaking Thursday for Melaleuca Expansion." The Knoxville News-Sentinel, 26 August 2009.
38. Marcum, Ed. "Melaleuca’s New Ground." The Knoxville News Sentinel, 27 August 2009.
39. "Idaho Company Gives Employees `Longevity' Payments." Associated Press Newswires, 16 November 2009.
40. Corbin, Clark (7-01-2011). "Melaleuca's Global Reach is Rooted in East Idaho". The Idaho Falls Post-Register. Retrieved 20 January 2013. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
41. "Ranch maintains family's link to tradition". Capital Press. Retrieved March 1, 2012.
42. Confessore, Nicholas (January 31, 2012). "G.O.P. Donors Showing Thirst to Oust Obama in November". The New York Times. Retrieved May 17, 2012.
43. Vogel, Kenneth P (May 31, 2012). "Mega-donors: Quit picking on us". Politico. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
44. Plaster, Billie Jean. "Frank L. VanderSloot" Sandpoint Magazine. Winter 2004.
45. "Inc 5000 List 1994: Melaleuca". Inc. Retrieved October 15, 2012.
46. O'Connell, John. "Controversial donor praised by dairymen." Capital Press. August 30, 2012
47. Mason, Melanie (August 29, 2012). "Money is on the unofficial agenda at the Republican National Convention". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 11, 2012.
48. Todd Dvorak, "VanderSloot Subject of IRS, Labor Dept. Audits," Associated Press in Idaho Press-Tribune, July 26, 2012
49. Weber, Joseph (July 25, 2012). "Romney donor bashed by Obama campaign now target of two federal audits". Fox News. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
50. Prentice, George (July 26, 2012). "Vandersloot Says Being on 'Enemies List' Triggered Audits". Boise Weekly. Retrieved September 17, 2012.
51. Assem Mrque and Diaa Hadid, "VanderSloot Subject of IRS, Labor Dept. Audits," Associated Press at KOMOnews.com, July 25, 2012
52. Miller, John (November 7, 2012). "Idaho voters rebuke Luna, Otter in dumping ed laws". KBOI-TV. Associated Press. Retrieved November 10, 2012.
53. Russell, Betsy Z (June 4, 2010). "Groups fined over ads against judge". The Spokesman-Review. Retrieved September 26, 2012.
54. Ring, Ray (October 22, 2008). "Prophets and Politics". Boise Weekly. Retrieved September 27, 2012.
55. "Best Multiple Personalities 2012: Frank VanderSloot". Boise Weekly. Retrieved October 6, 2012.
56. Wood, Daniel (July 2, 2004). "After years of muted July 4ths, more pyrotechnics in the works ; In a surge of patriotism, towns throw costs to the wind". The Christian Science Monitor. p. 02. Retrieved November 22, 2012.
57. "Frank VanderSloot Idaho Hometown Hero Medalist 2011". Idaho Hometown Heroes. Retrieved October 8, 2012.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• Start-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Start-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• Start-Class Idaho articles
• Low-importance Idaho articles
• WikiProject Idaho articles
• WikiProject United States articles