Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 1 May 2006

According to the overstock.com invester relations page http://www.shareholder.com/overstock/ they were founded in 1999 in Salt Lake City, Utah. In fact the address for corporate offices is still 6322 S 3000 E Ste 100, Salt Lake City, UT 84121-6931. According to Overstock's 10-Q filing they fulfill orders from a warehouse in Salt Lake City and an outsourced warehouse located in Plainfield, Indiana. http://biz.yahoo.com/e/051109/ostk10-q.html Can Gellerson enlighten me beyond "I think not?" Is Overstock really based in Cottonwood Heights with their corporate addresses and the warehouse in Salt Lake City? When Overstock says "Salt Lake City" are they refering to a suburb, or is the Cottonwood Heights reference perhaps mistaken?

"Salt Lake City" is often used colloquially to refer to any location in Salt Lake County or the Salt Lake Valley, which I suppose is fine for casual conversation, but is rather sloppy even then and, in fact, incorrect when the location is actually located in one of the fifteen other cities that are in the county/valley. Salt Lake City itself contains less than one-fifth of the population and occupies an even smaller geographical portion of the county/valley. Because it is so common for people to use "Salt Lake City" so liberally, whenever it is used one must suspect that the location being referred to might actually be in another city. This is compounded by the fact that the Postal Service has assigned "Salt Lake City" as the "default" place name for many ZIP codes in the area which are actually not in Salt Lake City. "Salt Lake City" is then used in mailing addresses, even though some of those addresses are miles and miles outside of the Salt Lake City limits.

In this particular case, "Salt Lake City" is the default place name for the ZIP code 84121, and so it is postally acceptable to use that city name in addresses with that ZIP code, even though the ZIP code is almost entirely within the City of Cottonwood Heights, and, in any case, at least 5 miles outside of Salt Lake City. It is, of course, perfectly acceptable and correct to use "Cottonwood Heights" for addresses in the ZIP code 84121. Just because "Salt Lake City" appears in an address doesn't mean it is in Salt Lake City; the address of 6322 South 3000 East is definitely within the Cottonwood Heights city limits and this can be verified by entering the address at the "Choose a Map!" function on the Cottonwood Heights city website (www.cottonwoodheightscity.com).

As for where the company was founded, I suspect the company was founded at or near its present offices, yet "Salt Lake City" is claimed as the place of founding, probably because that city can be used as its mailing address and because that city is more widely recognized. An encyclopedic article, however, should not make a statement that isn't true, and unless it can be confirmed that the founding actually took place in Salt Lake City, it shouldn't be stated that it was.

As for the warehouse, again, one must take the location "Salt Lake City" with a grain of salt (no pun intended) because the reference may be being made colloquially and the warehouse could very well be located in another city. Since an address is not given for the warehouse, the location can't be confirmed.

Anyone who has read this far may question if this is all really important or relevant anyway, but again, I don't think an encyclopedia should mislead or provide incorrect information, and one of the things I look out for in Misplaced Pages articles are casual references to places that do just that.

Denvoran 03:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears that Cottonwood Heights wasn't incorporated until 2004 http://www.clerk.slco.org/elections/html/results_arch/2004miscelect.html#3

2004 was when the incorporation election was held. The incorporation itself actually happened in 2005. This doesn't change anything about the article. Since 2005, the offices have been located in the City of Cottonwood Heights. Before then, the offices were located in unincorporated Salt Lake County, in the Cottonwood Heights CDP (census-designated place). At no time was this location ever part of Salt Lake City.

Denvoran 17:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well of course it does change the facts about the article, at least the part that was edited out - for a false reason evidently. There was no city "Cottonwood Heights" for Overstock.com to have been founded in. Possibly the area was refered to as "Salt Lake City" at the time; perhaps someone with first-hand knowledge (Gellersen perhaps) will confirm or dispute that. Do we know as a fact that the company was NOT founded in Salt Lake City proper, and if not shouldn't the default be what the company does say in multiple places including official documents filed with government agencies - as opposed to Gellersen's (to date unsupported) skepticism? I think we need more actual information, and less theorizing.

No, not really. In 1999, the city of Cottonwood Heights did not exist, but the census-designated place did and Cottonwood Heights appeared readily on maps of Utah for years in advance of the incorporation. It was a legitimate place name, and even if the incorporation had not happened, it would not be untrue to state that the offices are in Cottonwood Heights. As explained above, the area was and still is often referred to as "Salt Lake City", because the Postal Service designated that city as the default place name for the area's ZIP code. The Postal Service, however, has no authority to determine political boundaries and often disregards them entirely. The company may say they were founded "Salt Lake City", but what they really mean is they were founded in a "ZIP code for which 'Salt Lake City' is the default place name". Again, just because a city or place name appears in an address, that doesn't mean that the address is actually located in that place (and this is true nationwide, not just in the Salt Lake City Metropolitan Area.) Until the actual location of founding can be confirmed, the article should just say "Founded in 1999" and leave it at that.

Denvoran 06:11, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand this discussion. The company lists its address in its SEC filings as Salt Lake City, not Cottonwood Heights. I am changing it to Salt Lake City. I am also making a brief reference to the history of its recent controversy with critics, but am linking to the full discussion in the Patrick Byrne article. --Lastexit 20:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the discussion? The company may list its address as "Salt Lake City", but this is only because the United States Postal Service has assigned "Salt Lake City" as the "default" place name for the ZIP code 84121, where the company is located. The U.S. Postal Service has assigned "Washington, D.C." as the place name for addresses at The Pentagon, but this does not change the fact that the Pentagon is located in Arlington, Virginia, not in Washington or the District of Columbia. Similarly, Overstock.com is located in Cottonwood Heights, not Salt Lake City. Denvoran 07:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I have added a couple of lines to the article to deal with this Cottonwood vs. Salt Lake issue. I've added "post office vagary" or somesuch -- you might want to clarify further if that is not precise.

Saying "Cottonwood" without further elaboration is going to confuse people otherwise, as the corporate filings list the address of the company as Salt Lake City. Usually sources such as corporate filings are definitive in Misplaced Pages. --Lastexit 15:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Assertion of corporate "error"

As indicated earlier, Salt Lake City is listed in corporate documents as the location of Overstock.com. To say this was done "erroneously" -- as opposed to some other good reason that is not an error -- cannot be done without proper sourcing. See WP:CITE, WP:NOR and WP:V, particularly the latter.

If some verifiable source says that Overstock has been goofing up on its corporate filings by getting its address wrong, then by all means cite it and that's the end of that. But a Misplaced Pages user can't simply do research on a subject like this and then publish it and then say the company is in "error" in its SEC filings!

Incidentally, I think this Cottonwood Heights location itself needs to be sourced, again in accordance with WP:V. I've left that in but the word "erroneously" is unfair to the company and improper to put in a Misplaced Pages article in my opinion. Let's please discuss this rather than continually re-asserting the word "erroneously" and maybe get a second opinion from an administrator. Thank you.--Lastexit 11:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lastexit - why don't you provide the "verifiable sources" showing the "corporate documents"? Just because a city name appears in a mailing address does not mean that that address is actually in that city. To use my previous example, someone might find certain "filings" or "documents" that give the Department of the Army's address as:

Department of the Army

Washington, D.C. 20310

Based on this, to then report the Department of the Army's location as "Washington, D.C." is erroneous - it is located in Arlington, Virginia.

The U.S. Postal Service allows both "Salt Lake City" and "Cottonwood Heights" to be used with the ZIP code 84121. To choose to use "Salt Lake City" - even though it is postally acceptable - when your location is actually in Cottonwood Heights is an error and that is what Overstock.com has done/does. Denvoran 14:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Gellersen--there are dozens upon dozens of verifiable documents and sources listing the company as Salt Lake City. First here is the link to the SEC registration. and ANY of the documents filed by Overstock.

All I am saying is that you can't throw around words like "erroneously" without proper sourcing. You can't take it upon yourself to make that assertion. It needs to be sourced. Can you show me one source discussing this "error"

Quite frankly I think it is improper to even list the company as being someplace other than Salt Lake City because there is no sourcing for it.

Since you keep on reverting I am going to ask for a third opinion from the proper sources. Please abide by that third opinion.

If you can find a proper source then fine -- we'll leave it in. Otherwise I'm taking it out, subject to the 3RR.--Lastexit 16:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)