Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:23, 19 February 2013

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 15 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)

I'm not sure why qualifying the business has to appear in the lede. Why not just keep that in the body and save the lede for the name of the business and what it sells? The name of the business and what it sells isn't even there. I get people want to attack him every chance they get, but they can do that in the body. The lede should be reserved for a simple statement of unemotional facts. User:Socialjustice77 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 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)

This is a discussion worth revisiting. If the business model is to be in the lead, then the international retail and Internet dimensions ought to be included. Andrew 06:20, 8 February 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)

I have read the archives. The PDF was over 100 pages,

although

indenting

helped

make

it

so

long.

You make the logical leap that, even if Melaleuca were an MLM, that it is the best apposition for the company. For that to be the case, it would require additional policies, precedent, or proof. Andrew 23:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to be not understood? Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My point is that the majority of sources I've found (I cited over 50) do not refer to "Melaleuca, a multilevel marketing company". Even many sources that associate with company with MLM do not call it "an MLM" or language like that. Andrew 06:29, 8 February 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.

Actually that's not true, they refer to the company as a range of things but most refer to the company's business model as MLM. There's a difference. Andrew 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you're wrong yet again. A majority (at least 90%) of the articles I've cited do not even mention "business model". You can stop making baseless statements any time now. The tendentiousness is grating. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

“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.

But you should use arguments that relate to the lead of Misplaced Pages articles when discussing what content is appropriate for the lead of Misplaced Pages articles. Andrew 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC) Restoring comment that was deleted. Comment satisfies WP:TPO, specifically Sectioning. Comment also edited for formatting.Andrew 06:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

“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)

I have never canvassed. I was a member of that Wikiproject but left before you started complaining about it because it was pointless and I did not engage in any of the Project's activities. I have never canvassed anywhere. In fact, I'm proud of my edit history. I've made mistakes, but it would be hard not to once your edit count enters five figures. Your account only edits one kind of article, but I've never implied you have a conflict of interest because I don't know you. If you believe that I have violated a single Misplaced Pages policy, then present your evidence on the proper noticeboard and I will explain myself to an administrator. As it stands, I have an exemplary record.

Remember that WP:PACT is an essay by user:Fences and windows that reads in part, "...we can cut some serious slack to administrators who are doing the good work of defending us from nonsense" (emphasis mine). You are not an administrator, and regardless, an essay does free you from your obligation to assume good faith, which is "a fundamental principle on Misplaced Pages". Andrew 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t say that you canvassed. I said that you already know my position, because I assumed that I’d explained it enough times already in past discussions that it was unambiguous (i.e., GeorgeLouis canvassed, not you), and made the cause for my concerns quite clear. Why would you feign as though you don’t know what I’m referring to? You commented twice on the Vandersloot page on Sept 25/2012 – just shy of 2 weeks after joining WP Project Conservatism -- and backed up George’s edit warring over an absurd video that he was trying to railroad into the article. Surely you must remember that video – it was Grover Norquist’s tax pledge lecture from the Heritage Foundation that was being cited and linked to support some inanely trivial tidbit of drivel about Vandersloot eating ice cream and milking chickens on the farm when he was a boy. The one chock full of Vandersloot making slurs about other people. Remember now? The absurd video that got summarily executed because it violated every tenet of neutral, reliable sourcing. That was so memorable! I can’t attest to the rest of your contributions, but that one (my first real glimpse) was quite a bit shy of exemplary.

If you’re accusing me of being an WP:SPA, then all I can do is shake my head in dismay at this hamfisted attempt at misdirection. I did suggest that issues like these would be better taken up on your talk page (as per WP:TPG) if you wanted to discuss them further. If you don’t, then you can simply stop. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

My edit history is available for public viewing. I've reverted over a thousand acts of vandalism, reviewed hundreds of articles at AFC, participated in AFD and RFC, and created or made major content contributions to a wide range of articles (including one that I'm more proud of than I should be). Although I've made mistakes, I've never been warned or the subject of any form of Misplaced Pages sanction.

Regarding the WikiProject accusation, what exactly are you asserting? That I joined a WikiProject and then used it to find an article that isn't even listed as being part of the project (IIRC)? Or that I responded to canvassing before it even happened? I might be wrong, but I don't think there was any link to the BLP from the WikiProject page, not that I ever made any edits based on the project's page anyway. It's a boring WikiProject that I left.

If there is a specific allegation you'd like to make than I would be eager to clear my name. Otherwise, you are required to assume good faith.

Being an SPA does not violate Misplaced Pages policy. In fact, I doubt Wikiproject Trains would exist without them. But it doesn't change the fact that your entire edit history is devoted to a narrow range of topics. Andrew 17:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

You do know that this page is for discussing specific content issues right? I've invited you several times to take off-topic discussions about conduct to your talkpage, lest this thread get derailed, and yet you are still at it (and making unfounded accusations about WP:SPA). Again, I refer you to WP:TPG. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Instead of taking it off-Talk page, I'd rather you stop making accusations about me in any forum. Andrew 17:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) I didn't make nor am I continuing to make any "accusations"; at least nothing explicit like your WP:SPA charge. (2) Again, this is not the place to engage in a lengthy discussion about user conduct issues (c.f. WP:TPG). Capiche? Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason I don't want to move this conversation to my talk page is that you have made identical claims about several editors who are affiliated with this BLP dozens of times over the past several months and it's worth discussing here. Andrew 07:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus

Comment before the first block

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.

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)

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

Comment during the first block

See also Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#RFC, below.

When consensus has not been achieved in biographies of living people, "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The proposal being considered was to strip MLM from the lead. Clearly there is no consensus for that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment after the expiration of the first block

There having been no consensus on this matter, the contentious phrasing has been eliminated and the description of the Melaleuca company reverted to the version of 17:46 27 July 2012, where it had remained unchanged before the wording about multi-level marketing was reinserted at 20:22 8 September 2012. The other parts of the lede remain unchanged. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment during the second block

(1) There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that the company is an MLM. (2) There is a clear consensus of uninvolved editors that does not support your proposal to strip MLM from the lead. If you refuse to accept the input from this RfC, as your resumption of edit warring today indicates, then this will probably have to go to formal/binding arbitration. Please indicate if this is how you wish to proceed. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I intend on closing this RfC when discussion levels off / the RfC 30-day period concludes. I've been following the dispute, so I feel I understand the issues at play. Until then, please leave the edit warring warnings to me or other admins. Let's not be combative. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

@ RIR: Indeed. Given what has gone before, this latest development—reverting the lead during the RfC about it—is cause for concern, and I am surprised LR has turned a blind eye. (But not all that surprised, given that his earlier incivility warning to RIR did not extend to even-handedly warning the user who had so blatantly baited him into the response.) Additionally, IMO, even disregarding the context of the ongoing RfC, the revert has no basis in consensus, is redolent of WP:OWN, and strains AGF to breaking point.) Would the user be willing to undo his revert pending closure of the RfC? Writegeist (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Adding: on reflection, I choose to view both LR's omissions as the simple oversights of a novice admin. Writegeist (talk) 17:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I offered George some advice prior to his implementation of that edit (having discerned his intentions here), but he chose to ignore that advice. Worrying indeed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

My comment wasn’t intended as a warning (I will leave it to m'Lord to respond to the breach of protocol represented by George’s reversion today). It was a recapitulation of today’s events and an expression of concern that the RfC is being ignored and will be ignored regardless of the outcome, in which case a more formal resolution process might be necessary. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

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)

For what it's worth, I haven't been trying to remove the term since mid-2012. Andrew 17:31, 6 February 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)

And still others do not agree with you. And holding civil discourse on appropirate venues is not, and never has been "forumshop

Jumping in to the fray -(1)Despite their claims to the contrary, Melaleuca absolutely uses MLM (2) if you want that in the article you need an RS source to support it (fitzpatrick, taylor et.al. are not RS sources) (3) It's unnecessary to have it in the lede (4) the current lede - "He is the founder and chief executive officer of a multi-level marketing company" - is just plain silly. (4) IMO there's clearly enough sources for there to be an article on Melaleuca, Inc itself. --Icerat (talk) 16:18, 11 February 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)

Do you think the September part is correct? There are firm dates for the creation of Melaleuca here and elsewhere, but I don't know what to make of either the September or the five months. As time allows I'll try to put together a better timeline. Andrew 17:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC

I think having an RfC on this disputed content question regarding the lede would be worthwhile. Until then (or until you all reach consensus on the talk page), you all need to redirect discussions here rather than through your edit summaries. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Creating a new section for one now. Bear with me, I haven't posted an RFC before.HtownCat (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the RFC. I request that involved editors (myself included) refrain from responding to RFC posts until there have been a number of responses. We can all post our thoughts elsewhere on the Talk page but leave the RFC for much needed new voices. Andrew 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Otherwise we'll just have more of the same. HtownCat (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it'd be okay if one person in favor and one person against the inclusion wrote a short (200 words or less) summary of their argument below in the RFC. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC: Should the term "multi-level marketing" (MLM) be used in the lead section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was No Consensus for Inclusion.

The discussion below has centered on several key sticking points: (1) do reliable sources describe VanderSloot's company as operating by a MLM ("multi-level marketing") model; (2) if yes, is this description disputed or contested by other sources, or the company itself; (3) does the MLM description carry a negative connotation that implies criticism or illicit behavior on the part of the article's subject; (4) would inclusion of the term give undue weight to a structure of the company in the lead; (5) would inclusion of the term violate the biography of living persons policy?

There is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question. While the use of the Attorney General consent agreement is disfavored (as it's a primary source), there are ample secondary sources that describe Melaleuca as a "multi-level" corporation. However, there is no consensus as to whether this term is, in and of itself, a term that implies corruption or illegality. As WP:BLP requires that we take a conservative approach in the tone of article content, and with a fair concern being raised about both the importance and necessity of this descriptor (i.e. discussion about whether it's necessary or is an attack), I believe using the term in the lead would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. The significant criticism of the corporation that is in reliable secondary sources may be in the article proper, but its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.

--Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of this BLP? HtownCat (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Background can be found on Talk page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot#The_lead HtownCat (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Which_lede_should_be_used.3F HtownCat (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

More here too (the tendentious argument to whitewash MLM from the article has been taking place since mid 2012 -- note the contributions of single purpose accounts in the early phases of the discussion that were being cited as evidence of consensus). Rhode Island Red (talk)

More background at where the MLM as "pyramid scheme" was stated specifically by an editor in the body of the article. An earlier edit summary read Forbes refers to company directly as a pyramid selling company, which is a synonym for MLM (c.f. multi-level marketing), and (almost directly) as a multilevel marketing company making further clear that editor's intent in having what he now claims is an innocuous term in the lede. The BLP issues are ongoing - earlier edits linked VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles" etc. thus there is a very real implication that the "pyramid" implication is not one of neutral value in this BLP. (Unsigned comment by Collect 13:50, 3 February 2013‎)

Neither of the links you posted pertain to this discussion about MLM. Could you please either justify their inclusion with a further explanation or move them to your comment section. Inundating the lead-in to this discussion with noise impedes the process. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

They directly refer to the background of the edits on this BLP, and the fact that one editor wished to emphasize the "pyramid scheme" in his edits. That you fail to see the word is not my fault here - I rather think your "input" on this RfC dwarfs the input of all other editors combined <g>. Collect (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The 2 edits have nothing whatsoever to do with the MLM issue at hand. Like I said, it’s just noise. It’s troubling to see that you can’t simply admit it and instead are doubling down on the misdirection. It's pretty clear that you've exhausted your ammo if you're resorting to commenting on edit volume instead of the MLM issue. Seems pretty goofy to me, but so be it.Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Inundating . . . with noise" is hardly a friendly way to put things. Anyway, to comment on this lead-in: The editor two comments above has quite often used the phrase "whitewashing" (as he did in this lead-in), which implies that there is something "black," or nefarious, about the term multilevel marketing. I am glad that he agrees that the term is so black that only a whitewash can cover it. Nothing of the sort is proposed: Only that the contentious term be excised from the lede and that both sides of the debate be examined in the body of the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Get over it. I’m expected to be civil, but neither of you are my friends, so don’t confuse the issue. Again, the links Collect posted have nothing to do with the matter at hand. However, if the two of you want to double down on such nonsense, be my guest. After all the grief you’ve caused beating this non-issue into the ground, I would have thought that you’d try to make a better effort to support your case with relevant comments now that you have a forum and other editors paying attention, but apparently that’s not the case. Oh well. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I ask you again -- why are you posting a link to a dead discussion about Mormon pedophiles from mid-2012 that has nothing to do with the MLM issue. Was it an error or purposeful misdirection? Since you cannot justify the inclusion, I'll kindly request again that you remove or redact it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Responses

Previously involved editors

1.

Writing that a businessman engages in multilevel marketing may be considered vituperative, even if there are citations leading to the sources of the accusation. See the WP article on the subject for some of the negative connotations associated with this business practice. It is better to leave the description out of the lede and mention it briefly in the text below. The controversy really does not exist in the "outside world"—only, it appears, on this Talk Page. VanderSloot's company, Melaleuca, denies it is engaged in the practice.GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Better for whom exactly? You? Vandersloot? How are you gauging "betterness" in this case? What is the basis for saying that MLM may be considered "vituperative", and again, who would consider it so -- you? We wouldn't modify an article merely on the basis that "GeorgeLouis may consider it vituperative". Put some facts on the table. The only point you got right is that the fact that Melaleuca's designation as an MLM is not controversial, and hence, there's no reason for this endless tendentious discussion. Vandersloot has not denied that his company is an MLM; quite the contrary -- he acknowledged it directly to the Idaho Attorney General's office, and even if he did deny it, it still would not change the fact that multiple independent reliable sources have deemed that it is. And even if there were a controversy about it (which there isn't), WP:LEAD still would dictate that it be included. You are batting zero with these tenuous arguments. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, VanderSloot denies he is a multilevel marketer. See 'Don't Call Me a Multilevel Marketer.' What can one make of that in the light of WP:BLP policy other than be wary when WP is calling him a multilevel marketer? GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

We’ve been through these types of non-denials before. Nowhere in the article does Vandersloot say that Melaleuca is not an MLM. He implies that he doesn’t like his company being called an MLM because some MLMs have less than stellar reputations; and he tried to create some vague distinction between his company and others like Amway. The article claims that “Melaleuca goes out of its way to say it is not a multi-level marketer because its business model doesn't meet any state or federal criteria.” However, what is this claim based on? There is no evidence anywhere that “Melaleuca” goes out of its way to deny being an MLM, and a "company" per se cannot confirm or deny this fact; it would have to be based on a quote from someone at the company, and the only person quoted was Vandersloot, who never actually denies that his company is an MLM. The article concludes “the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure”, more or less negating the pseudo-denial.

As far as state and federal criteria for MLMs go, Melaleuca meets all of them, and in fact, Vandersloot already acknowledged that his company is an MLM when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG. So in other words, there is nothing to be “wary” about. Vandersloot already knows that his company is an MLM. He tacitly admitted this when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG. You’re trying to steer WP into perpetuating some kind of dishonest marketing contrivance about Melaleuca not being an MLM when in fact it clearly is.

I must say though that I’m impressed that this article appeared right in the midst of the WP argument about Melaleuca’s MLM status. Did Vandersloot pick up the phone and request this interview so he could issue this non-rebuttal to WP? I’m surprised that the title wasn’t “Don’t Call Me a Multilevel Marketer on Misplaced Pages”. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

One other point: "The final element of defamation is damage. You must be able to provide that you suffered harm to your 'property, business, profession or occupation' as a result of the statement. If no one believed the false statement and you suffered no damages, there is no defamation." GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

2.

In general, what should appear in the lead is the most important information in the body. In this case, the name of the company is not as important as its nature, although I would not object to having both in the lead. There is absolutely no doubt in the real world that Melaleuca is an MLM company. That VanderSloot publically denies it is clear; that anyone else, including the company itself, denies it, is not. Even if the company denied it, that information probably should not be in the article as fact, as it would clearly be "unduly self-serving". (See WP:SPS.) As you said, the controversy really does not exist in the "outside world"; Melaleuca is an MLM company, and the nature of the company is what should appear in the lead. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

3.

Yes, per the sources listed here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC) Adding: despite claims to the contrary, there are no sources indicating that Melaleuca is not an MLM business, apart from VS's self-serving quasi-denials (which only indicate how Melaleuca might depart in quite minor ways from other variants of MLMs). The furthest one can go in this direction is Jeremy's contention that the issue is not important enough to include in the lede -- but that's a matter for consensus of the usual sort and is certainly not a plausible "BLP violation". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

4.

WP:BLP requires that all biographies be written conservatively. This applies even more strongly to the lede of any such biography, for obvious reasons. If a term is likely to be construed as reflecting negatively on the person, there must be very strong arguments for placing such a term in the lede. In the case at hand, that argument, required by WP:BLP as a policy has not been met. Collect (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the conservative angle, WP:BLP states that "criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone". The article in its present form clearly meets that standard and the burden of evidence with respect to reliable sources. MLM is not even a criticism; it's just a simple dispassionate statement of fact. The "write conservatively" argument has no merit in this case. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

5.

Yes. We’ve already established that a plethora of reliable sourcs identify Melaleuca as an MLM; these sources include journalists, MLM experts, the FTC, the BBB, legal documents, Melaleuca marketing executives, etc. The MLM designation has been supported by editorial consensus. I am yet to see even a single source where Vandersloot directly denies that his company is an MLM (instead he tends to use equivocal statements attempting to differentiate his company from Amway and other unnamed companies that Vandersloot characterizes more or less as “bad MLMs”). Quite the contrary in fact – Vandersloot acknowledged in a consent agreement with the Utah Attorney General that Melaleuca is an MLM. There is no basis for claiming that the term MLM itself is defamatory, as GeorgeLouis has steadfastly maintained, and the term is in fact used in hundreds of articles throughout WP to describe various companies. Given that it has been well established that Melaleuca is an MLM and that this is supported by consensus, there is no reason why the term should not be used in the lead. A solid argument would have to be presented to support removal of the term, and so far, no one has presented such an argument. WP:LEAD states:

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... Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at content that follows.

Not only does this indicate that the MLM designation, as a defining and oft mentioned (i.e., heavily weighted) feature of Vandersloot’s company, for which he is notable, belongs in the lead, but it dictates that even if the MLM designation were controversial (and it’s not), there would still be no basis for removing it from the lead. The argument that MLM might be construed negatively is speculative and has no merit whatsoever. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't see consensus here. I see contention. There has been dispute over this matter as far back as here (June 2012), and maybe even farther. We are now talking about a WP:Biography of a living person. There is no doubt that the term can be viewed as derogatory, per this quotation from the Misplaced Pages article on Multilevel marketing:

MLM companies have been a frequent subject of criticism as well as the target of lawsuits. Criticism has focused on their similarity to illegal pyramid schemes, price fixing of products, high initial start-up costs, emphasis on recruitment of lower-tiered salespeople over actual sales, encouraging if not requiring salespeople to purchase and use the company's products, potential exploitation of personal relationships which are used as new sales and recruiting targets, complex and sometimes exaggerated compensation schemes, and cult-like techniques which some groups use to enhance their members' enthusiasm and devotion.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

There was and still is consensus that the company is an MLM; and there is clear WP:RS evidence that the company is an MLM (which you seem to be refusing to acknowledge). Let me state this once again with absolute clarity -- the term MLM is not derogatory. If you choose to view it as such, that's your problem, not WPs. The quote you cited refers to the fact that MLM companies have been criticized and the subject of lawsuits in the past. That is not equivalent to the term MLM being derogatory any more than the term "financial institution" or "oil company" would be derogatory merely because some people view financial institutions and oil companies with disdain. Please up your game or better still just drop this tendentious MLM argument altogether. The discussion has only continued this long because you choose to keep beating the dead horse; arguing over the lead while still insisting that the company isn't an MLM and that to say otherwise constitutes defamation. Tendentious in the extreme. There was no legitimate dispute about the company's MLM designation in June 2012 -- unless you're referring to the string of protests from 3 SPAs (and probable WP:SOCKS); your edit warring over the term;; and the baseless objections that you raised at that time. In fact, MLM has been in the article the entire time. Rhode Island Red (talk) 02:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

6.

No. For those of you summoned by RFCbot, multilevel marketing is a business model that traditionally involves having sales people buy supplies then re-sell them to others, who in turn do the same, which leads to bad things. This company's business model is different in several important ways, and it is better to describe the business model in the body of the article. Looking at reliable sources via Google and news/business databases, almost no sources refer to it as an MLM in their leads. Even the articles cited by Nomoskedasticity and Rhode Island Red do not usually refer to it as such in the lead. In fact, the overwhelming majority of reliable sources don't appear to call it an MLM at all. The sources that connect it with multilevel marketing are often either political outlets or mention it in passing without any analysis. The current version of the lead states that a controversial alledged business model is the single most important thing about the company, which is untrue. Andrew 17:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Implicit in Andrew's post is an acknowledgement that the sources indicated by RIR and me do in fact refer to Melaleuca's business model as MLM. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Implicit in Andrew's post is WP:OR. It's all just personal opinion and has neither basis in policy or fact. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add that the OPs question should have been phrased as "should MLM be removed from the lead", since it is already in the lead and the basis for its inclusion has been more than sufficiently justified. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The thrust of Andrew's latest argument is not merely that the term MLM should be expunged form the lead but rather that the company is not an MLM at all. That's a tendentious backsliding argument, since a consensus has already been established (and supported by multiple sources) that the company is in fact an MLM. Since it is an MLM, and the body text of the article states that this is so, there is no reason why it should be removed from the lead, as indicated by the core text of WP:LEAD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

One more point that needs to be corrected (yet again). At the core of Andrew's argument is that the lead of a WP article is dictated by the content in the the lead of a source article(s) (i.e., if MLM is not mentioned in the lead of a source article, then it should not be mentioned in the lead of the WP article). That's just a patently absurd argument, and I've already pointed out this absurdity once already. It's unclear why Andrew continues to cling to this tendentious argument, since it has been explained already that it has no basis in WP policy. Apparently he didn't hear that. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources do matter. The article as you would have it would state that a distribution model is a company's single defining characteristic. It's not, which is why most sources refer to it along the lines of a supplement maker or household products company. It is uncommon for Misplaced Pages articles to get into business models in the lead of a biography, especially a BLP. For example, let's look at a biography that extensively describes business practices in the lead. Henry Ford discusses the revolutionary business practices that the subject invented, but stops short of defining Ford Motor Company as "a franchise business" (so is McDonalds, after all). Instead the company's lead says it is "an American multinational automaker headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, a suburb of Detroit." There is a good reason that almost no unbiased reliable sources ever refer to Melaleuca as an MLM in the lead: distribution models do not define companies. In fact, check out the list that I made with only casual searching. Plenty of things are sold through any given business model, and those models don't mean anything by themselves. And, as I have previously said, I believe that the question of if Melaleuca is an MLM is different from the question of MLM being placed in the lead, and the latter query is the purpose of this thread. Another factor is that the company has global retail locations and an active sales website in addition to other marketing types. If MLM is mentioned, then so too should the company's retail and Internet sales. You edit warred over acknowledging that fact, which involved no changes to the MLM text. Andrew 23:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

How many times are you going to swing and miss? You stated specific opinions (backed by WP:OR only) to justify your no 'vote' and none of them were even remotely valid. Maybe you didn't hear me the last couple of times, so I'll say it again -- the content attributed to a source in the lead of a WP article is in no way determined by whether or not the content is located in the lead of the source article. Are you going to double-down on this tenuous assertion or concede that it is in fact without any basis whatsoever in WP policy. Rhode Island Red (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. You keep saying that Melaleuca should be referred to basically by the name, "a multilevel marketing company", which is not justified in the bulk of the literature. Even many of the (dubious) sources you cite that refer to the company as using MLM still initially use names like "Melaleuca, a household-products company based in Idaho", "...Melaleuca, his privately held firm in Idaho Falls, Idaho," etc. If this RFC finds that there's a place for it in the lead, you have yet to show that it is the most important part of the company and is the proper apposition. And citing dozens of sources is the exact opposite of original research. I would be happy to visit the OR Noticeboard. Andrew 02:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point. The original rationale for your objection to including MLM in the lead was some nonsense about whether or not the term appeared in the lead of other published source articles. I’m pointing this out for the fourth time now and you are still refusing to acknowledge it. Just for clarification, those blue numbers in brackets are called citations, so in the future when you make claims about what the “bulk of the literature” does or does not say, kindly take the time to support your assertions with sources and evidence. We’ve been laboring over this MLM non-issue for far too long, and now that you have a soapbox and a chance (at least in theory) to convince other editors of your POV, you are completely shirking the burden of evidence. Similarly, if you are going to impugn the veracity of “many of the sources”, as you did above when you parenthetically referred to them as dubious, you should present some convincing evidence instead of just blurting a novel allegation out of the blue as though it were a fact. You seem to be running from one spurious argument to another without even taking a breath in between. Relax. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, just popping my head in to remind everyone to stay cool. So far, the level of dialogue here has been commendable. I hope it continues. :) -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

7.

Yes I kinda feel like I've already gone over this. I was initially on the fence regarding the use of the term MLM, but the more I looked into it, the more clear it become. MLM is about distribution of profit, (not where the physical product is stored). Melaleuca rewards people who sell, and it rewards people who recruit sellers. There are multiple levels of marketing. I understand why VanderSloot and Melaleuca might balk at the term, but they don't get to redefine concepts just because other business have made them unpopular. Melaleuca, Inc, multilevel marketing, and Frank VanderSloot are all intrinsically linked. Grayfell (talk) 08:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

8.

No We have sources claiming that Melaleuca is an MLM; we also have sources claiming that it is not am MLM, including several sources quoting Frank VanderSloot on the matter. Based on that alone, we should not include the term in the lead as if it is an uncontested fact. This is a BLP and the article subject repeatedly states that Melaleuca is not an MLM, yet his statements were removed when I added them to the Melaleuca section from this source. Right now this article is unbalanced--it considers only the sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM and ignores information to the contrary. HtownCat (talk) 16:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Vandersloot acknowledged that his company is an MLM when he signed the consent agreement with the Idaho AG -- why are you ignoring this fact? Aside from that, there are multiple sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM and these range from the FTC, journalists, MLM experts, and former Melaleuca executives. Not that it would matter either way, but where are the sources that quote Vandersloot claiming that Melaleuca is not an MLM? The examples that have been presented do not support that claim. For that matter, where are the other sources claiming that Melaleuca is not an MLM (and if you're trying to pit one source against more than 20, then your argument fails on the basis of WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE). The discussion at this point must be focused on specifics, so if you aren't going to back it up, don't say it. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You are right that we should be more specific. More sources:

• VanderSloot Responds to Allegations of Threatening Media
• Inc. Magazine Hall of Fame profile
• CNBC article about pyramid schemes

As for the legal document you've linked above, it says "The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare products, persuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho." I will leave it to the attorney general to have any "belief" that he or she wants, but VanderSloot isn't admitting to an MLM in this "assurance of voluntary compliance." HtownCat (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It couldn’t have been any clearer. The preface of the document states: “Upon filing and reading of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance in the above-entitled matter, and good cause appearing therefore, the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance is hereby approved and adopted according to its terms and provisions. Violation of the Assurance of Voluntary Compliance may subject Melaleuca, Inc. to proceedings for contempt of court, or proceedings under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act for other appropriate relief."

The document then goes on to state: “The Attorney General is informed and believes that Melaleuca sells various nutrition, personal care and homecare products, pursuant to a multi-level marketing plan, in Idaho.” The official document closes with Vandersloot’s signature. There’s no wiggle room there. The Idaho AG says Melaleuca is an MLM; Vandersloot officially acknowledges this fact and accepts all the terms set forth by the AG. Even if Vandersloot later tried to explicitly deny that his company is an MLM (which he never did), it wouldn't matter because the ultimate authority, the AG, determined otherwise. And as I thought, not one of the 3 sources you cited contains a statement from Vandersloot denying that his company is an MLM. Rhode Island Red (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The subject of the sentence is still the Attorney General. What VanderSloot affirmed is that the Idaho AG thought Melaleuca used MLM. Andrew 07:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's good enough for me. Like I said, the AG is the authority -- that's pretty much the end of story. Vandersloot never directly denied that his company is an MLM (not that it would matter), and the agreement with the AG constitutes an acknowledgement of the company's MLM status that at least meets the burden of evidence for the use of the term MLM in the WP article; that and the 20+ other sources ranging from the FTC, BBB, MLM experts, legal documents, journalists, orgs, etc... Rhode Island Red (talk) 08:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that you've been using that link to "prove" that VanderSloot admits that Melaleuca uses MLM. It clearly does not show that. Andrew 08:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

When the AG declares that your business is an MLM and you consent to the AG's terms in an agreement, under penalty of contempt for violating those terms, then (1) your company is an MLM (2) you have acknowledged that your company is an MLM. That and the plethora of other sources leave no room for argument. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Content guideline at Misplaced Pages:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biographies_of_living_persons: "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors." . GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing "using large blocks of material based purely on primary sources", nor is any interpretation or synthesis of the source required. The statement from the AG is crystal clear. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't get it; the statement from the AG is a primary source. How can its use be justified?GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

For my part, I wouldn't propose to use it in any extensive way. It's the primary icing on the secondary cake. I simply think it undercuts VS's rejection of the term MLM -- but I wouldn't support adding any text that gets into a back-and-forth in that regard. The existing text (sentence) relying on the source in question consists of quotations and so doesn't fall foul of the restriction on interpretation of primary sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Nice metaphor, but what is the secondary cake. I may have missed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

The secondary cake is, naturally, the large set of secondary sources in which Melaleuca is identified as a MLM business. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

It says here: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." Kind regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Read the current sentences in question carefully, Iselilja -- they do not make direct assertions about a living person. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"(2)you have acknowledged that your company is an MLM." aka "VdS has acknowledged". I read that to be an assertion about VdS. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about the sentences in our article on VS here. The quotation you indicate does not appear in our article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I hope it is clear now that I was making a comment about the validity of the argumentation to Rhode Island Red above. With regards, Iselilja (talk) 12:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I like the cake metaphor, but for all editors following this discussion, particularly those from foreign countries who may not understand the residual animosities from the recent presidential campaign, I would really not advise pinning your opinions concerning the lede of this article on "sources" with such obvious axes to grind, as I will point out below. Also, the discussion during the past few paragraphs (including my own remarks above) have almost nothing to do with figuring out how to gain consensus about the lede of this article, so why are we even talking about these "sources," which are comprised of:

• An opinion column by Eamon Murphy who stated only that VanderSloot was "targeted by the Idaho attorney-general's office" (no details)? Who in the same breath attacked VDS for his perceived anti-gay activities and for his passion for social conservatism. The same writer who slammed VanderSloot's wife for donating $100,000 to help defeat California Proposition 8.
• An opinion column by Stephanie Mencimer in Mother Jones which also slammed VDS for donating $1 million to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and for what seemed to be the same anti-gay actions mentioned above. A column which stated flatly that "Melaleuca did not admit wrongdoing" in signing the agreement with the attorney-general.
• An opinion column by Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone headlined Right-Wing Billionaires Behind Mitt Romney: They're trying to buy a presidency—and they expect a big payoff on their investment. The same Rolling Stone that flatly headlined VanderSloot as a "PYRAMID SCHEMER." The same Dickinson who called VanderSloot an anti-gay crusader and noted that the man owned a "17-bedroom home in Idaho Falls."
• An opinion column by Glenn Greenwald in Rolling Stone that called VanderSloot "particularly pernicious" and allied him with "billionaires" who "can use their bottomless wealth to intimidate ordinary citizens." A column that in the end reported that the agreement signed by Melaleuca was voluntary and that "certain independent marketing executives"—not Melaleuca—had violated Iowa law.
• An opinion column by Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, on a Bill Moyers blog, no less, in which they chided VanderSloot and others for having donated to Mitt Romney's campaign and in which they called VanderSloot "a rancher—with 110,448 acres, on which he no doubt roams playing 'This Land Is Your Land' on his little Stradivarius."

These may be estimable opinion-molders, but their biases are showing. I will end by once again supporting HtownCat's comments at the very top of this section, stating "We have sources claiming that Melaleuca is an MLM; we also have sources claiming that it is not am MLM, including several sources quoting Frank VanderSloot on the matter. Based on that alone, we should not include the term in the lead as if it is an uncontested fact." Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 12:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

1. You are labeling sources as politically partisan “opinion columns” quite liberally and arbitrarily. I’m not sure what you are trying to convey by raising this argument, but it seems that you are essentially trying to unilaterally dismiss them as invalid; which is inappropriate. You tried to argue against these sources in the past and your arguments garnered no support on the noticeboards. You are stating as fact something which was not supported by the broader community.
2. You have in the past been quite vociferous in arguing for the inclusion of highly partisan right-leaning political “opinion pieces” from non-journalistic sources; the Heritage Foundation video comes immediately to mind. Thus your apparent argument against sources that do not line up with your political POV rings very hollow.
3. You are ignoring that there are more than 20 sources that describe Melaleuca as an MLM, including the Idaho AG in a consent agreement which Vandersloot signed.
4. There isn’t even one source in which Vandersloot directly denies that his company is an MLM – not one – so why are you still doubling down on this nonfactual argument? Even if VS had denied it, his denial would represent a WP:FRINGE opinion (which would be excluded based on WP:UNDUE, and even if the issue had received significant independent coverage, making it a “significant controversy” (which it it isn’t), that would still necessitate that the issue be mentioned in the lead as per WP:LEAD, which specifies “…summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.”
5. You seem to be continuing to argue the extreme minority position that the company is not an MLM. Clearly, the consensus does not line up with that POV. The argument now is merely whether MLM should be stripped from the lead (it clearly should not be), not whether the company is an MLM, and you are losing that argument too, as indicated by the consensus of opinions from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

9.

Yes Mainly an onlooker (having made very few comments in previous discussion), I note generally consistent strength in the reasoning from RIR and other "yes" men/women. "Multi-level marketing" is the conventional term that describes the business model of Mr. Vandersloot's enterprise. Is Melaleuca in fact an MLM? Yes: RIR and others have provided multiple RSs. Mr. Vandersloot's notability rests in large part on founding and running Melaleuca as a multi-level marketing company. The MLM descriptor qualifies for inclusion in the lead of this BLP.

Opposing positions appear rather devoid of enduring substance. Perhaps that explains the resort to misrepresenting some of the "yes" faction's comments (e.g. twisting a comment by RIR—where RIR mentioned credit default swaps, oil companies, lawyers, politicians, and Nazis as neutral terms per se that don't warrant exclusion from an encyclopedia on the grounds of negative perceptions—in order to accuse RIR of holding the position that Mr. Vandersloot is comparable with Nazis). And the effort to exclude MLM on the rather queer grounds that information can only go in the lead if RSs lead with it. And the attempt to derail MLM discussion towards a long-dead discussion about Mormon pedophiles. And the attempt to claim consensus against MLM by citing sock puppets in support of its exclusion. (And the fact that RIR was attacked for pointing this out—RIR's comments were misrepresented as accusing his attacker of supporting sock puppets when in fact no such accusation existed—except, as the attacker had to admit, in his own imagination.) And so on, and on.

The "yes" faction has repeatedly shown the "no" position's lack of legitimate basis in BLP, V or RS, etc. I'm persuaded by RIR, Arthur Rubin, Nomoskedasticy, Prhartcom, Capitalismojo, Jusdafax et al. I lean towards a slightly modified version of Prhartcom's suggested wording: VanderSloot is the founder and CEO of Melaleuca, Inc., a multi-level marketing company. Writegeist (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

10.

No: This RFC originated with a question I asked a few weeks back on this talk page as to whether or not MLM should appear in the lead. When I asked the question I definitely did not expect this extreme level of difference of opinion, showing to me a clear level of controversy over whether or not MLM should appear there. The mere fact that a simple question draws such strong opinions from all sides shows that it is not clear that MLM should appear in the lead. However, my question was if it should appear in the lead because it is not a major part of the article itself. So I’ll start my analysis there.

Out of nearly 700 words describing Melaleuca, the phrase MLM appears only once, and with no description as to why other than a series of references that support no additional text. That Melaleuca is an MLM appears only in passing. The Forbes source refers to it departing from other schemes, but does not describe how Melaleuca is an MLM—it assumes without telling us why. Mencimer of Mother Jones refers to Melaleuca in her February 6, 2012 article as one of a group of “so-called multilevel marketing firms”, hardly a clear term, but does go into more detail—I’ll get to that in a minute. One real problem is that the Forbes source and Mencimer source say different things—Forbes talks about how Melaleuca is different from other allegedly MLM firms, while Mencimer assumes they are the same. Which is true? The difference between these two sources is not acknowledged by the text, and the references are assumed to say the same thing, which they do not.

Mencimer’s second source, from May 2012, only refers to Melaleuca as an MLM in passing, which does not make this an important or notable part of the article, just as the reference to MLM is not an important or notable part of the Forbes article. Now, the Rolling Stone article, lets be honest here. This is not a neutral article, and accuses Vandersloot of wanting something personal in return for his participation in politics without evidence. It also only refers to Melaleuca as an only MLM in passing.

So there are no articles that refer the Melaleuca in anything more than a passing manner used here and I assume due diligence was done in selecting them as the best sources, except for one, which is in direct disagreement with the more reliable Forbes source (well, I don’t know, maybe Mother Jones is more reliable than Forbes, I doubt it though). So we have a single source that really highlights Melaleuca’s business practices, an article I would say isn’t very convincing. The article does not actually tie the term MLM directly to the rest of its arguments, or explain that any of its arguments show Melaleuca is an MLM. If this is the best we can do in terms of a source, I’m very hesitant to say that MLM is a major part of this article. The article says that Melaleuca has bad business practices, but hardly makes an extremely clear argument that it is an MLM. How many articles can I find that George Bush is an extreme right wing politician and that Obama is a socialist that appear in references Misplaced Pages finds reliable? We use our common sense not to include such rhetoric, and I think we have such a case here, as such terms have negative connotations that have no place on Misplaced Pages.

The sources used to describe Melaleuca do much more to actually describe the company, and yet it is the passing reference to MLM in certain articles that either talk about Melaleuca only in passing or are looking at Vandersloot’s political activities in a negative light that certain editors see as more important than anything else. The argument is that MLM describes the company better than anything else, but when I look at all these sources I disagree there is evidence of that. The rest of the reports used to talk about Melaleuca did not feel MLM was the best way of describing Melaleuca; many reports don’t even find it notable (or definitive) enough to put in their articles about Melaleuca. If it was that important, would not every single writer feel it imperative to put it in their article? If not, then the notability of MLM as the pinnacle description of Melaleuca is definitely in question.

Should MLM be in the lead? Misplaced Pages states that the lead section “should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. MLM does not best define Melaleuca if you look at the sources about Melaleuca, it does not establish context as it is a very small part of this article, it does not explain why Melaleuca is notable as a part of the article, and is not a summary of an important point. The policy also states, “ 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. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article”. It is clear that MLM appearing in the lead section is not reflective of its importance in the article, especially when looking at its place in the sources used, and I would argue that Melaleuca being an MLM, so far as how the subject is treated in this article, borders on a trivial fact. It is a billion dollar corporation with hundreds of products, and there is no general consensus among the press or even the editors here that it being an MLM, or it not being one, is not key to our understanding of the company.

Now if we read the lead section policy on BLPs, Misplaced Pages asks that Due Weight policy be used, and given that the term MLM and Melaleuca are only combined once in the entire article, I think it is pretty clear that Due Weight gives us reason to not include MLM in the lead. Especially as MLM is used more heavily elsewhere in the article, using it at the top can clearly cause confusion between Melaleuca and its previous, closed, incarnation. I find it odd that we’ve not included any sources that discuss how Vandersloot closed the prior incarnation because it was an MLM, I can provide them if necessary, however I am no longer confident that edits to improve this article will not be summarily deleted without thought through the constant edit warring of editors here. The major BLP issue people seem to be raising here, is if calling Vandersloot the owner and founder or an MLM is harmful to the individual. I would state that if Vandersloot has fought as hard as he seems to be in the articles we’ve included against the term MLM, it is likely harmful to him. We can see clearly that this individual has all but stated that it is harmful to him in many different reliable sources; arguments those sources found fit to print at length and not simply in passing. So then, is the term MLM harmful, if misapplied?

I think I’ve shown here why I was concerned about the need for MLM being in the lead, and its misplacement there. When it comes to linking Vandersloot to the concept of an MLM, we have two issues. One: are we using original research to do this and passing references only and; Two: is it a damaging term? I’ve argued the first point, but I think the recent CNBC source added to the article clearly shows that being called an MLM is damaging. Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them. When CNBC picks up on something like this, I would say that we can be clear that being lumped in with MLM as a concept is harmful.

Now, is Melaleuca an MLM? There are two sides to this here, and I make no pronouncement on the issue. I tend to think it is not, but have seen that evidence it might be is there—though nothing definitive. However, as the poster of the original question as to whether or not MLM should appear in the lead, I am happy to see such energy put into it. I think Misplaced Pages policy shows that it should not be in the lead, and BLP issues show that we should pay attention to this. Beyond that, the value as per the spirit of Misplaced Pages, of having the term MLM in the lead section is dubious in my mind. Thank you everybody for helping explore this question, I look forward to how this will be resolved. Jeremy112233 (talk) 21:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

That was a very long post and I immediately noticed that you did not include a single link to back up any of your assertions, so given that it was entirely speculative, I simply skipped to the last 2 paragraphs. In answer to your questions: Yes, Melaleuca is an MLM. While there may be 2 sides to this point in theory, there are not 2 sides in reality; more than 20 sources (including the Idaho AG, FTC, etc.) describe the company as an MLM and an overwhelming majority of editors here have supported that view; there has been virtually no argument about inclusion of the term in the body text, so your's is a minority viewpoint. (2) No, we are clearly not using original research; and (3) I'm not sure what you mean when you allege that the term is "damaging", but there is no evidence to support this assertion, and it is not a consensus viewpoint. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, very thorough analysis. Responding to RIR's statement that he was "not sure what you mean when you allege that the term is 'damaging'," and that "there is no evidence to support this assertion," those matters were treated in Jeremy112233's eighth paragraph, as follows:

I think the recent CNBC source added to the article clearly shows that being called an MLM is damaging. Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them. When CNBC picks up on something like this, I would say that we can be clear that being lumped in with MLM as a concept is harmful.

As for RIR's observation that "it (the damage aspect) is not a consensus viewpoint," consensus is not required to remove damaging material from a Biography of a living person. GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I applaud your honesty RIR, though as you did not bother to read the post, I'm not sure why you bothered commenting. By all means feel free to read the full post if you wish your comment to reflect the actual content of what you are trying to analyze. If there are 20 sources as you say, please include better ones that do not simply mention the MLM aspect merely in passing. I also think it is strange that while I did not say Melaleuca was not an MLM, you accuse me of saying just that. Kinda weird. Lastly that you didn't address the content of any argument, but then again, as you said, you didn't bother to read it :) Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's delve a bit deper into the claims above about the CNBC article.

1. The CNBC article does not refer to the MLM designation as "damaging" -- not even remotely.
2. The CNBC article does not hold up Vandersloot as an example of how it can be damaging to refer to a company as an "MLM company".
3. The author of the CNBC article does not dispute Melaleuca's MLM designation -- in fact the article tends to support it with statements such as "while the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure" and "the Direct Selling Association concedes that among direct sellers, 'everybody has their own definition of multi-level marketing'."

It's also worth pointing out that article's sources were incredibly lopsided -- including only Vandersloot and the Direct Selling Association which is a political lobbying arm for the multi-level marketing industry, rather than sources like the FTC, Idaho Attorney General, or recognized MLM experts that could have actually provided some insight (and who have already indicated that Melaleuca is an MLM). Even with that lopsided approach, the article still does not support any of the claims that you are making about "damage". Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The CNBC article was not designed to label Melaleuca as an MLM, or to "clear" it from being an MLM. The article was designed to give the point of view of some of the companies mentioned. And it did. The section on VanderSloot states:

Vandersloot said: "We have long been critical of 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 purchase 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."

If VDS believes that "typical MLM companies destroy people's finances," you can bet that he could not be very happy about his company being lumped in with the MLM world. I mean, really, what more proof do you need than this observation from the subject of this article himself?GeorgeLouis (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(1) You cannot make assumptions about what may or may not make Vandersloot "very happy", and (2) the role of a neutral WP editor is not to act as a prognosticator and defender of Vandersloot's happiness bur rather to contribute in an NPOV manner to the encyclopedia and its background discussions.

What you initially stated above was that "Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging, when someone is not necessarily an MLM-er but is lumped in with them." The article clearly does not do that, which I pointed out, and you have now switched to a new argument that "VDS believes that typical MLM companies destroy people's finances"; to which I ask -- so what? It's not clear what he's referring to when he says "typical MLMs", and whether he thinks typical MLMs are wonderful or wretched is of absolutely no concern to the issue of his company's designation as an MLM, which it clearly is and has been labeled as such by numerous (>20) sources including the Idaho AG.

If anything, the CNBC article goes directly against your arguments because it states "the company sells its products through what appears to be a multi-level structure." Your response to this point (i.e., "the CNBC article was not designed to label Melaleuca as an MLM") made no sense whatsoever. I can't imagine that you have first-hand knowledge of what this rather lopsided PR fluff article article was designed to do, unless you know more about the underlying motives of the contributors than you are letting on. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"Appears to be" does not mean "is." It means "seem; give the impression of being." GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The point is that your claim that "Vandersloot is held up as the example of how it can be damaging" is patently false, and your comment about Vandersloot's "happiness" shows great confusion as to the true objectives of Misplaced Pages. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

So from what I gather here, RIR has no comment on anything in my statement other than my interpretation of the CNBC statement. Well, I disagree with him/her on that, but that was only a very small part of my argumentation. As I said, this is what I've gathered from the small one liner question I asked a few weeks back, which has apparently turned into a firestorm. The same people want MLM in the lead because they believe it is important to describing Melaleuca, but there is no policy behind this desire. I've yet to hear a single argument for keeping MLM in the lead that is steeped in Misplaced Pages protocols, and if we have this much dissension about it as well as people who seem to very strongly believe this could be a BLP issue, I'm not sure what the argument is to keep MLM in the lead. It is neither essential to understanding this article, nor a significant enough part of it to be in the lead, in my opinion. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:34, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I did fine this, not sure if it is an RS: Wellness store opens first outlet in Bangsar in a April 2010 edition of Malaysian Star. At the very least, it is an example of a third-party stating that Melaleuca is not an MLM--so it's not entirely true that no one in the world has ever written that Melaleuca is not an MLM in a third-party reference. Please note that I am not here inferring that The Star should be the end all, be all reference here--it is only one article--but it does show that outside of the North American media Melaleuca is not always seen in the exact same way. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

What you have there is a credulous reporter, who forgot to say that the regional vice president "asserted" this and that about Melaleuca and MLM. Jeremy, I have a feeling you knew that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No just asking :) To be honest, I know these kinds of sources can be used, but am never quite sure what balance they are given. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Inventory loading, break­aways, and "inventory maintaining" are not defining characteristics of MLM. I see these sorts of misleading ideas alluded to in some of Melaleuca's promo materials and Vandersloot's comments -- i.e., invent an arbitrary (and wholly inaccurate) re-definition of MLM and then claim "we're not that". Very misleading. The company in fact fits every practical definition of MLM. The Idaho AG has recognized the company as an MLM, and Vandersloot acknowledged it. As a footnote, it seems very weak to scrape the bottom of the sourcing barrel (a Malaysian tabloid) for definitive information about an American company. Rhode Island Red (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you RIR. Just asking about the article if it had potential. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

1. Yes. For a much simpler reason. Remove all negative and positive connotations, and the term is simply a label describing a business practice or strategy. In this light, it emanates neither negative nor positive connotations. So why not start neutral in this way and use it. Let it describe the business practice/strategy. Let the reader bring up whatever pictures that means for them, we couldn't stop that anyway. The label actually has both negative and positive connotations, so go neutral. Neutral and positive. I thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the points above; some were very compelling; thoroughly enjoyed reading them all. I believe we may also need to add the company name as well. Therefore, I suggest "In 1985, VanderSloot founded Melaleuca, Inc.; a multi-level marketing company." (like it says here.) Cheers. —Prhartcom (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I Agree strongly with your proposed restoration of the company names. I was going to suggest the same. I think the names might have been deleted as a compromise to appease the MLM denialists, so I don't think there would be any objections to restoring them. Arthur? Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. One of the complaints from the removalists was that the lead was too long. I merely pointed out that the nature of the company is more important than the name, so I replaced the names with the natures. I have no objection to restoring the names, as long as the nature is kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in. Unfortunately the term is more than just a neutral descriptor of a company--MLM has a negative reputation. If you google the term you get a bunch of this type of thing:

• Quackwatch
• Financial Industry Scam website
• 'MLM' The American Dream Made Nightmare

On your other point, I like your idea to include the company name but think it should read "In 1985, VanderSloot founded Melaleuca, Inc.; a wellness product company." (or another descriptor of their products) HtownCat (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Epic fail! The term "oil company" has negative connotations for some people too but that doesn't mean that it's not reasonable to call an oil company an "oil company". Your argument is tendetnious to the extreme. The term MLM has no inherent positive or negative meaning. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Oil company describes what the company produces, MLM is a term that describes an alleged business model. The two terms are not equivalent. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you are unable to wrap your mind around that simple oil company metaphor, try "telemarketing". It's really very simple and very very obvious. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This is like talking to brick wall. There are dozens of analogies that one could use to illustrate this rather obvious point -- i.e., the term MLM is not inherently positive or negative, and how some might people perceive a particular industry is irrelevant to the name of that industry. Some people might love MLMs and some people might hate them, but that has no bearing on how an encyclopedia is written about the subject. You really must abandon this tendentious argument once and for all. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RIR, please do your best to address the logic of other's arguments, rather than labeling them "tendentious". Both sides have strong points and it serves the RfC better to have a more focused and calm dialogue. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I see no evidence of "logic" on the other side. Saying that a neutral term (and oft used term both on WP in general and in published sources describing Melaleuca specifically) shouldn't be used in a WP article because the term might evoke a reaction is not logical. People have negative perceptions about credit default swaps, oil companies, lawyers, politicians, and even Nazi's, but that doesn't preclude their usage in an encyclopedia. It's a non-starter. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) It's actually a very important distinction. It's like referring to Ford or McDonalds as franchise companies instead of automotive and fast food, respectively. Andrew 21:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I resent being called "tendentious" for merely disagreeing with you and providing a previously uninvolved editor with information about the term. I have worked civilly with you on this article since September, even when disagreeing with some of your edits, and would hope that a group of Wiki editors could have a polite discussion in order to move an article forward. HtownCat (talk) 23:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your resentment is misplaced. I did not call you tendentious; I said the argument is tendentious. If that bothers you, you can pick a better argument or rewrite WP:TE. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Making accusations of tendentious editing can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if tendentious editing is alleged without clear evidence that the other's action meets the criteria set forth on this page, and unfounded accusations may constitute harassment if done repeatedly." Misplaced Pages:TE#Accusing_others_of_tendentious_editing GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

2. Yes MLM is a long established marketing approach. I see nothing to concern BLP issues and it is clearly the foundation of the subject's wealth and hence notability. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; well-said. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

3. Yes - I discovered this topic recently via central discussion, and had never heard of this article's subject previously. I support the inclusion of the term 'MLM' as a descriptor of his company's business activity, which seems simple enough, and the addition of company names, which would seem to be a matter of public record. Those pushing with vehemence against it strain my observance of WP:AGF, and invite speculation as to their motives. I would additionally suggest that all parties attempt to observe the constraints of WP:CIVIL. Jusdafax 06:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the vehemence of these paper-thin counterarguments strongly call motives into question. I pointed this out back in mid-2012 when George and Collect repeatedly campaigned for removal of the term MLM based on what they referred to as a prior consensus but was in reality just a bunch of nonsense from 3 SPA/sockpuppets. The assumption of good faith has been strained past the breaking point. I suspect that we're either dealing with some Melaleuca distributors/employees or paid advocates. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Um -- has it occurred to you that someone might notice your iterated aspersions on other editors including tons of accusations of "tagteam", "collusion" and "COI" and that your assumptions of bad faith on the part of every editor who disagrees with your position that VanderSloot is remotely comparable to "Nazis" might actually backfire on you? Collect (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Note: I have zero connection of any sort to Meleleuca, VanderSloot, Mormons, pedophiles, Nazis, or the like, and I have no COI, collusion or tagteam on this or any article on Misplaced Pages. Period. Now drop the damn aspersions! Collect (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ROFL! Speaking of backfires, that might be the most inept use of the "when did you stop beating your wife" fallacy in WP history. The embarrassment you should be feeling for making that statement is insufficient punishment for such an egregious abuse of Godwin's Law. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

4. Yes VanderSloot is primarily a businessman – what his business is, and what it does should be in the lead. MLM is just a business strategy, I see no BLP concern. The term should be used since it accurately describes his business. Also, I agree with what Prhartcom said. FurrySings (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

But, Furry — beyond doubt the term "multi-level marketing" has an evil connotation. Just search for the phrase "multi-level marketing sucks" or "multi-level marketing scam" and see what you come up with. Calling a businessman a "multilevel marketer" when he disagrees with that assessment is not really a neutral idea, wouldn't you say? GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

So that exercise is supposed to prove that if you add “sucks” or “scam” in front of something, you’ll find sites where people think that thing sucks or is a scam? That's a twofer -- a self-fulfilling prophecy and a fallacious argument. The search results that were linked above consist of wonky blogs and other non-WP:RS sites. How would those sites be even remotely relevant to WP?

I just Googled “oil company” and here were some of the top search results: More Bodies Pulled from Mexico Oil Company Explosion, California Sues Oil Company For Environmental Violations, Oil Company Begins Clearing Whittier Nature Preserve ("The city of Whittier and a Santa Barbara oil company prompted outrage Thursday as they began clearing trees and brush from a nature"). Should we purge “oil company” from Misplaced Pages now, lest we risk offending some poor reader’s sensitivities about oil companies? Just imagine what the Google results would have looked like if I jiggered them by adding “suck” or “scam” to the search string. For that matter, the search results for “Meleluca scam” and "Melaleuca sucks” aren't too flattering. Should the word “Melaleuca” not appear in the article because it might have negative connotations? Rhode Island Red (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

5. No Whether MLM has a negative connotation or not is important for including or not including the term on the page, particularly in the lede. In my opinion the term does carry a negative connotation, and a simple search of the term makes that clear. If a business owner classifies his company as something different and makes a clear case against the term as he has done, I don't see how it can continue to be called that on a BLP. Because it appears to be contentious, why not just include the company name and reference the types of products they sell rather than the sales structure? --BiH (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any compelling evidence (beyond that invisible "simple search") to back up you personal opinion about what the term MLM allegedly connotates? In the consent agreement, the Idaho AG determined that the the company is an MLM, and Vandersloot signed that agreement. There are more than 20 other sources that refer to the company as an MLM. Vandersloot doesn't deny that the company is an MLM, and even if he did, it wouldn't matter because of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. On a side note, this recent comment on your Talk page was somewhat disturbing. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comments

As an uninvolved editor, I've been reading the above arguments from those voting No on this question with some amusement. If you don't mind my giving a broad overview of this: The No editors are trying several approaches to try to win their goal of "MLM = Bad". None of their arguments are logical or valid. They all reveal their deep-seated bias against the MLM business strategy. They forget that their job as editors is to remain neutral. Unfortunately for them they are getting a reminder of this, as Rfc has returned only Yes votes. They will lose this one. The phrase "multi-level marketing" will be in the article as that is what the subject of the article intended in his company. Editors, please recognize this and allow this.

Editors, if this helps you, please consider this: There aren't any Yes votes here saying MLM is a great marketing strategy. They are only saying MLM is a marketing strategy, and they are saying it is this company's marketing strategy. You can agree with those two points, can't you? Now ask yourself, are you saying MLM is a bad marketing strategy? If so, then why don't you instead change to remain neutral, as you are when you edit other articles? Good. Thank-you for considering this and settling this. —Prhartcom (talk) 15:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

We are discussing only the lead, not the body of the article. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The question is whether the term MLM should be stripped from the lead, but the overall discussion is about the term MLM in general, which pertains to the entire article. There is a clear consensus that the company is an MLM and that the term should not be stripped from the body text. Since that's the case, there's no conceivable reason why it wouldn't be included in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. Rhode Island Red (talk) 00:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Good, be bold and please do that, Rhode Island Red. I'm off. —Prhartcom (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you not do that RIR. And the issue is whether the intent of using it in the lede is proper - which is quite doubtful. You will recall that I did not object to a discussion about MLM in the article. Where a fact is contested in the article, it ought not be presented as uncontested in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nobody can make any changes until the block expires. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not do what, Collect? Prhartcom seems not to have noticed that it's already in the lede, so no need to do anything in any event. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I read the posts. I think you ought to do so as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you opining on what the consensus is? Please clarify. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you caught the posts that make it clear that VS signed a consent decree to an Attorney General document asserting that Melaleuca is a MLM business? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a secondary source that says that VdS has admitted the firm is a MLF ? You cannot use court records to assert that, as I read the BLP" Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person". Iselilja (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Once again, no-one is using a primary source to support text that says VS has acknowledged it is a MLM business. We can use sources in the prescribed way, and we can also use sources to come to informed views on how to approach the issue generally. In this case, that means reading carefully the sources that purportedly have VS denying it is a MLM business, and it means evaluating those sources properly in connection with knowledge of certain key legal events and VS's role & actions in them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

As long as the court record cannnot be used to assert things about VdS in the artice, it can´t be used to informally assert things about him on the talk page either. If you want to upheld the claim that VdS has admitted that the firm is a MLM business, you have got to have a secondary source for the claim. Iselilja (talk) 08:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahem. Vandersloot acknowledged that his business was MLM. We know this via a court document. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

He acknowledged that someone else said his business used MLM, it's different from him saying it. Andrew 08:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not just "someone else". You're writing as if he had some sort of informal conversation. He signed a legal document and created a legal fact. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:05, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ahem, ahem. Pr. BLP, you are not allowed to use court records to assert things about living persons on Misplaced Pages. Hence, while you may "know" for yourself that he has admitted the business is a MLM based on court records, this is not a valid knowledge or claim in this discussion. So, I am asking if you have any secondary sources that say VdS has acknowledged in these court records or elsewehere that the firm is a MLM business ? Iselilja (talk) 09:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

If you think I'm breaking the rules, perhaps you ought to take me to ANI. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why qualifying the business has to appear in the lede. Why not just keep that in the body and save the lede for the name of the business and what it sells? The name of the business and what it sells isn't even there. I get people want to attack him every chance they get, but they can do that in the body. The lede should be reserved for a simple statement of unemotional facts, not a vendetta. socialjustice77 (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Referring to the company as an MLM is neither an "attack", "vendetta", or emotional; what an odd supposition. Read WP:LEAD and you will have a clearer idea of why the term belongs in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Important (IMO) point: Anything in the decision that renders the term "multi-level marketing" synonymous with a dubious if not illegal business practice should be avoided, because that is simply and quite evidently not true. MLN is not in itself fraudulent. If the company in question claims it follows MLM, then that should be in the article and if this is a notably prominent characteristic of its business model, then it should be in the lead paragraph, too, without a doubt. Also in the lead paragraph, mention should be made of the company's application of that business model being notably disputed. -The Gnome (talk) 07:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Renumbering error

My apologies to Rhode Island Red for not giving his comment a number when I made this layout change, with the edit summary "‪Replacing hashtags with the actual numbers. Fixing some spacing for clarity‬". RIR had typed a bullet (•) instead of a hashtag (#), and I did not realize that his offering was the 100-word statement requested by Administrator Lord Roem; I thought it was a reply to the section just above it. Thanks to Nomoskedasticity for catching the error, although I felt Nomo's remark "fix attempt to disguise the nature of another editor's comment" was off the mark and personally hurtful. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Um. Everyone (including RIR) had used asterisks (not hashtags). RIR's contribution there was no different from the others... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Arthur Rubin and I were making the same or similar changes within four seconds of each other. Some of the editors had used hashtags not "Everyone (including RIR)." Thus the mixup. It would be nice if one would not jump to conclusions but instead were to WP:Assume good faith. GeorgeLouis (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

As it turns out, Arthur managed to make his edit without removing the hash tag next to my comment, so that has nothing to do with your goof up. It would be refreshing if you simply accepted responsibility instead of trying to deflect this onto Arthur. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, whatever. This is not really the place to get personal. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing comments

I have seen several edits being made of talk page comments to which other editors have already responded. Even small edits can change the meaning of a statement. WP:REDACT suggests using strikethrough for removals and underlining for additions combined with a quick acknowledgement that the comment was edited. Andrew 16:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

This has been an ongoing problem since I posted my initial comment. Often it is accidental, but please take care to mark all edits to your own or anyone else's comments in accordance with WikiPolicy. Andrew 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This applies

Subheaders

Recently I added some subheaders to the section headlined Consensus. These were to make the section easier to read and edit. Nothing was moved around and no text other than the headers was added or altered.. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't consider the subheaders helpful, but I won't revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

George, I reverted the addition of the arbitrary after-the-fact sub-header because it changed the context of my previous comment -- i.e., by moving it under an out-of-context sub-header, to which I was not responding, instead of leaving it under the comment of yours to which I was directly responding. Your placement of it under a new arbitrary sub-header changes this context and connection. In addition, there have been no "blocks" as you included in your subheaders but rather periods of "page protection", so the labels are inaccurate; and I don't even see why it's important to superimpose this odd chronological framework to indicate whether a comment came during, before, or after a period of page protection -- it is not significant to any editorial issue and serves no useful purpose. Doing this once I can possibly understand but given that another editor expressed a concern that the context of their comment was changed by your edit, why repeat it? I hope you can understand now that inaccurately sub-categorizing another editor's comments after they have posted them is unnecessary and it creates more problems than it purports to solve, and we already have enough to deal with. Thank you in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC Question

It looks like discussion is winding down on the RfC and that most of what's going to be said has been said (thus, the giant wall of text). Would anyone object if I began reading all of the comments to begin closing the RfC tomorrow? Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection, thank you so much for your time! Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer this to be handled by an admin with a lot more than a fortnight's experience. (LR has already mishandled his response to an incident where a user here baited another into an intemperate remark.) Perhaps LR would like to invite somebody experienced and neutral to take over. Writegeist (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This page has been on my Watchlist for a long time and Lord Roem is the only admin who's given it this much attention. I wouldn't be so dismissive of someone willing to get involved. Another administrator, Barek, summed it up nicely: "the only reason the page is on my watchlist is due to prior edit warring complaints, and I try to monitor for those. Other than that, I simply have no interest in the person or the company, and would rather invest my limited time on other subject areas." Andrew 19:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Lord Roem has significantly more than enough experience to handle our arguments. Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Hm. And "that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Writegeist (talk) 20:55, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Ummmm...what exactly does "significantly more than enough" mean? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

RFC closing decision

Thanks to LR for your input; I appreciate your being willing to stick around to help mediate one of Misplaced Pages's more admin-unfriendly disputes. Andrew 16:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for helping in this dispute, hopefully this will help us improve this article more collaboratively moving forward. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just one note, and this is probably the best place to put it: LR has stated that the term "multilevel marketing" is applied to Melaleuca by a wide variety of "reliable sources" (may not be his exact words). I beg to differ. Many of the sources are extremely unreliable and refer to VanderSloot negatively and only in the context of his being a donor to Republican causes or his other social or political activity. None of the sources, to my knowledge, have explicitly examined Melaleuca's business practices in a disinterested way and labeled the company as an MLM. In fact, User:Andrewman327 has listed for us above, under "Three different issues:Is Melaleuca an MLM?," a really substantial number of sources that do not refer to Melaleuca as an MLM, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 February 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In accordance with the RFC decision, I propose that MLM be removed from the lead. I'm open to different wording, but the preponderance of sources suggest referring to the company in this way in the lead: "Melaleuca, an Idaho Falls based wellness products company." Andrew 17:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe that the term should be removed from the article in general, as the RFC closed that the term is a breach of BLP policy. As Lord Roem stated, it is not relevant whether or not it is in the lead, as it should not be in the article at all due to its connotations. At least as I read it. Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Just link to the company if notable and leave it at that. The push to include this and other material here seem very agenda driven. --Malerooster (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm open to different ideas. In that case how about we remove MLM from the article? Andrew 18:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Malerooster had the right idea for the lead, just replace "a multi-level marketing company" with "Melaleuca", and for its only instance in the text, just remove the term and the grammar is still correct. If you want to add more to the lead I'm not sure what the best description would be myself. We can also do this ourselves as of midnight if it hasn't been done yet. Jeremy112233 (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I suggest a slimmed-down version of the lede proposed earlier by previously uninvolved administrator User:Barak, as follows (my deletions from Barak's version):

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.

As for removing the term altogether, well, let's talk about it, but should it be under this rubric? GeorgeLouis (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Prior ideas on a lead without MLM that gathered support would be the most cautious way of going about things, instead of us coming up with something on the fly, so I support your idea for the first paragraph. So long as we don't touch the material below the first paragraph at this point. We don't have a consensus to change that, so additional discussion would be necessary. As for the body, I think simply removing the term suffices, as I believe all prior efforts to remove it didn't have much connection. We don't have to change any text to remove that one. Jeremy112233 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of the edits proposed by GeorgeLouis/Barek. HtownCat (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the term from the body as per the RFC; the term was removed from the lead by Andrew. Jeremy112233 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But darling, the RfC did not ask about removing the term from the body. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

And I quote: "There is debate below as to whether it's needed in the lead of the article or whether it's better in the sections below. That point is important, but not relevant to the issue here. A term that may carry a negative connotation, and doubt as to whether it should be used means that it can't be used in the context of a BLP." The term is to be removed, as per the conclusion of the RFC. Please ask clarification from the closing administrator if you disagree. Jeremy112233 (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

So there is no confusion, I closed the RfC as "No Consensus for Inclusion". Without consensus to use the term, policy mandates that it be excluded. Please stop edit warring this change. Anything else (besides the term MLM) should be discussed here if a change is contested. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Rookie admin mistake. By trying to implement a change that was not raised or discussed in the RfC, you are making yourself WP:INVOLVED. If you want to address the discussion here on a matter that was not part of the RfC, by all means -- but your role as an admin for that RfC was to determine consensus of the participants, not to bulldoze your own view. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The RfC asked whether the term "multi-level marketing" should be used. Because there was no consensus, that term must be excluded. My explanation for that was in the close above. Additionally, my closure of the RfC is an administrative action and does not make me involved. Nor does a suggestion that any disputed changes besides the use of the MLM term should be discussed here on the talk page. Now, you are free to continue discussing the addition of the term to generate a new consensus, nothing about that RfC bars that. But until that time, you may not add in the contested term. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The RfC asked whether the term should be used in the lead ("Should the term "multi-level marketing" be used in the lead section of this BLP?"). Did you perhaps miss that? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

No. I mentioned that in the closure. Where the phrase is placed is irrelevant to the question of what the phrase means and what it implies.

I'm not getting drawn in to any discussion of the merits of the issue because I have no opinion about the full merits of the issue. I will consider it disruptive to continue to add in a term which may violate our BLP policy after I have already warned you against doing just that. If you have any further questions, please leave a note on my talk. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to get drawn into discussion of the merits. You just have to stick to the terms of the RfC. Going further than the question that was posed makes you involved; your status as an admin does not entitle you to dictate content. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

There is more at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#RfC_close_goes_beyond_the_RfC_question. GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Of course there is. The point was to settle the dispute. The manner in which the RfC was closed can't possibly do that. And so it goes on. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should include the fact that the company has been accused of being an illegal pyramid scheme in the lead. No possibility of any dispute, and (aside from it being an MLM), is the most notable thing about the company. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Leded are for summary of facts - not listings of opinions - and the company is not VanderSloot, making the possible BLP weight even more important. Discussion of what the company has been called with opinions ascribed as such to those holding them may be allowed in the body of the text (with consensus), but statements made as "fact" in Misplaced Pages's voice must be far more strictly construed. As Lord Roem noted. BTW, when one uses "illegal" in any article about a living person, WP:BLPCRIME is governing in such a case. Collect (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As Lord Roem's commentary is clearly contradicted by WP:NPOV, and is not supported by BLP, it should not stand. The guidelines provide that, except for BLP and copyright violations, a neutral, properly sourced statement, should be in the article unless there is consensus against inclusion.

I still think it would be better to have descriptions than names in the lead, but that's an opinion. What's not an opinion is that it's an WP:NPOV violation to say anything about Melaleuca and not promenantly say either it's an MLM or it settled claims that it was an illegal pyramid scheme. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Though he hasn't yet indicated his change of heart here, Lord Roem has now recanted the view expressed above that his close is intended to bar the term MLM from the article as a whole. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Lord Roem, I take exception with your decision regarding the RfC and request that you coordinate the next step in the resolution process – namely, ArbCom.

Your ruling centered around a single issue; i.e. the tenuous claim that the term MLM has inherently negative connotations that would preclude its use in a BLP:

“However, there is no consensus on whether the use of the term, in and of itself, carries a negative connotation. That uncertainty, intersecting with the nature of this article as a BLP, requires that the term be excluded.”

“Is the term just a description or does its history and use by bad companies mean it's inherently a criticism? The discussion below reached no answer to that question, though I feel there's a slightly stronger argument by those saying it's a negative term; some of those in favor of inclusion do concede that point, in whole or in part.”

“This is not to say criticism of a person can't be in an article, rather that when there is a dispute as to whether such criticism is an attack or paints an individual as corrupt as a matter of fact, a consensus must be demonstrated that inclusion is appropriate.”

In short, you conclusion (a double negative) boils down to there is no consensus that the term MLM does not have inherently negative connotations. I would argue that such a decision would have to be based on a clear consensus that the term does carry negative connotations, and no such consensus was reached, nor could such an assertion be reasonably defended.

The term MLM carries no inherently negative connotations; it is a legal and widely recognized form of business in the U.S.; the designation is used by hundreds of U.S. companies and in a plethora of WP articles about such businesses. In contrast, your decision is a de facto ruling that the use of the term MLM is pejorative and defamatory. This has far reaching implications and sets a precedent that referring to any company as an MLM or associating the term with any individuals who run such companies (even when well supported by independent WP:RS as in the case of Vandersloot), would be a policy violation. The decision opens the door for purging the term MLM from dozens if not hundreds of WP articles; the ramifications could impact virtually every article in which the term MLM appears.

You reached this tenuous conclusion about negative connotations despite the fact that practically every single one of the outside editors who weighed in on this issue concluded that the company is indeed an MLM and that the term is neutral and not inherently negative. These views were reinforced by Arthur Rubin and Wikiwiserick, who up until a few weeks ago, were also uninvolved editors on this project. I would argue that you have superimposed your own viewpoint against the position of these unsolved editors, and these are the very opinions which the RfC was intended to solicit and on which the content decision should have been based.

Your decision, which in reality applies to the lead only, also leaves us in a quandary – namely, there was a consensus that the company is an MLM and that it is valid to mention this in the body text of the article, yet at the same time, according to your decision, the term cannot be used in the lead because of its potential negative connotations. Given that there is a consensus that the company is an MLM and the term belongs in the body of the article, we now have a dilemma imposed on us in whereby the term MLM carries negative connotations only if it appears in the lead. The decision, rather than resolving the conflicts, has just created confusion and opened the door to more edit warring and instability.

So ArbCom appears to be the only means of resolving the issue definitively and achieving long-term stability on this article, as well as other article that might be affected by this precedent setting RfC decision. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

At a minimum, this edit can and should be undone, as it has now been repudiated as part of the RfC close. Having edited the article twice in this regard today, I'm reluctant to do it myself. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

As whether or not to remove MLM has clearly been settled by the RFC, a point now clarified by Lord Roem, I believe this is an instance where the 3R rule does not apply. We have been instructed not to use the term MLM to describe Melaleuca in this article. I am going to follow this decision, as ignoring it is akin to vandalism. If you have a problem with the result, please use more constructive means to making it beyond edit warring. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to consult the link given above to Lord Roem's contribution to the ANI discussion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read it. All that has been said here is that a consensus to include it is required, not that a consensus is needed to take it out. Lord Roem has stated that he has not outright banned the term; he did not state that he was wrong or mistaken in stating that MLM needed to be taken out of the body. If the argument develops otherwise this is fine, however at this point there has been no reversal of the original decision. Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Content tag refers to 'multi-level marketing'

I have no objection to removal of the {{content}} tag as long as MLM is appropriately mentioned (i.e., the first sentence of the section about the company). However, if someone (e.g., Collect or GeorgeLouis) wants to retain the tag for the reverse reason (that MLM is mentioned), I shouldn't remove it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with having a generic tag, but I've tried adding tags in the past to this article only to be reverted. My only objection would be if there were a controversial statement embedded in the tag. Andrew 17:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's the purpose of that particular tag, which I had never seen before:

This tag should be used when it is believed that particular information being deleted from an article is relevant and therefore should be allowed in the article. Importantly, the tag lets the reader know he may not be getting the full story due to the exclusion of that piece of information. On the article's Discussion page, note the information you believe should cease being excluded before placing the tag.

The tag may assist in moving the dispute to the talk page, and reduce edit-warring when a piece of information is being repetitively inserted and deleted. If a consensus is reached that the information is notable and relevant, the information is inserted in the article and the tag is removed. If a consensus is reached that the information is not notable and relevant, the information is not added and the tag is removed.

My objection to the tag was that it did not specify which information had been removed. I understand now that the info referred to is the wording "multi-level marketing," so I have added that to the header. If I am wrong, just change it back. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not endorsing any specific tag in any specific place. I just think that when there are differences of opinion, it's OK to flag them. I do believe that we should avoid adding text beyond the generic template text unless a specific reason tag is required. Andrew 20:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed reopening of Rfc at ANI

I have proposed reopening the Rfc at ANI after numerous parties expressed concerns and the closing admin expressed some retractions. I am asking to reopen and continue the Rfc for broader attempt at consensus. This is an issue that has importance for precedence, as I see it, and we need to take the time we need for clarity. Thank you. Jusdafax 22:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

See WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Collect (talk) 23:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree, as I neither started the subject here, nor took it to ANI. Jusdafax 01:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

MLM in body of article

The term "multi-level marketing" was reintroduced into the body of the article here, with the edit summary "Undid revision 538067575 by Jeremy112233 (talk) per consensus." Just for the record, there is no consensus to use this term anywhere in the article, and there never has been. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not good at judging consensus; however, no real policy-or-guideline-based argument has been presented for exclusion. One "include" and a dozen WP:IDONTLIKEIT "exclude" posts would constitute a (limited) consensus for inclusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• From the RfC close: "There is consensus that reliable sources describe his company as a MLM and that this isn't something that is the subject of debate among those who have written articles on the question." George is of course free to disagree. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, the rewritten close has MLM included in the body at this point. We didn't really argue about it to any great extent in the RFC, so future arguments on the subject are likely to continue as has been pointed out by others. Those opposing it have as much right to argue for its removal as others had right to challenge the RFC close to delimit its scope. Jusdafax suggested more debate, and though I disagreed with throwing out the RFC in its entirety, I do think additional RFC debate or other means could be helpful if there is still a staunch disagreement over the term. And if there isn't, well then, it may just go away. Why don't we give it some time to see what happens? Jeremy112233 (talk) 19:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, sure -- anyone can argue for anything. But one salutary outcome from this episode is that even a "conservative" (in the BLP sense) admin was willing to see through the crap and recognize which argument had better roots in reliable sources. It's actually rather impressive: despite a wailing chorus of opposition, LR perceived that there was consensus regarding the way the company is described in reliable sources. Hey, quality of the argument, not just numbers on one side vs. the other. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Popkey deadlinked article

Any article which can not be verified at all which makes contentious claims in a BLP should be removed. The deadlink is one such, and should be removed by anyone per WP:BLP. Collect (talk) 19:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Not available via click != not verifiable. See WP:SOURCEACCESS. Funny, I'm sure you know this, Collect. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Idaho ballot initiatives

I don't understand the ballot procedure in Idaho. The Legislature approved some laws that were signed by the governor. Then what? Somebody passed petitions to repeal them? But the measures put on the ballot actually were in favor of the laws, right? How did that happen? The ballot measures were defeated, so that meant the laws were overturned. Very confusing. Could we have a really good edit of that section to make it clear what happened? I tried but couldn't make head or tail of it. Thanks. GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't studied Idaho's "referendum" process, but, in California, if a measure is passed in the legislature, and signed by the governor, not as an "urgency" bill, signatures can be gathered in opposition. If sufficient signatures are gathered, it's put on the ballot, as "Shall SB123 be affirmed" (or something like that). So, a "yes" vote is to affirm the law, while a "no" vote is to repeal the law. Simple enough? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH and Unverified Details Re: Tranisition From Oil of Melaleuca to Melaleuca Inc.

Regarding the following section of text in the article:

"Vandersloot eliminated Oil of Melaleuca's requirement that contractors purchase and store products without any guarantee that they would be sold. In the new arrangement, which is still in effect, contractors receive commissions from Melaleuca for each purchase their customers make, but the customers buy directly from Melaleuca, which ships them directly to the consumer. The company refers to this arrangement as “Consumer Direct Marketing," a term it has trademarked."

I was unable to confirm the details as presented above; the quoted sources do not support the text as written, which has been improperly synthesized. As such WP:BLP requires that it be removed. Whoever added this material is welcome to provide quotes here to possibly generate text that accurately represents the sources. I also modified the section that followed the block above, which indicated that Forbes had commented about "the change in business practices". Forbes, in fact, made no such reference. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Since none of the details that RIR deleted are detrimental to any person or company (in fact, they are rather favorable, and they seem to explain just what happened), there is no reason to delete them, so I restored the challenged sentences. There are, however, valid reasons for getting the citations correct; therefore I added a tag requesting better cites if they can be found. What's more, if indeed there are errors or omissions in the text, it would be better that each of the phrases or sentences be challenged individually on this Talk Page rather than that the whole thing be deleted. {I am also confused as to how RIR could have checked the Menser article when there is no valid link to it, unless he has a printed copy, and it would be helpful if that could be shared with us.) GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason for deleting was given properly: WP:SYNTH, thus also WP:V, and in light of your post here WP:NPOV. We do not allow favorable material to stand if it is not sourced properly. I also note that your edit summary "restoring deleted material" was misleading insofar as the change you made included deleting other material; this has now been restored. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I accept your comments, and perhaps it would be best to reinsert the deleted information one piece at a time, if we can find the sources. To start, I'm beginning a section on this page called "Consumer Direct Marketing," a term that was deleted here. GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Consumer Direct Marketing

The phrase "Consumer Direct Marketing" (CDM) and the fact that it is a trademark were deleted from the article here. VanderSloot is pretty insistent about Melaleuca not being a multilevel marketer (MLM). Shouldn't the CDM claim be returned to the article in some fashion, and if so, how? We have a source for it being a trademark on this Melaleuca page, and we have the official record from the U.S. Patent Office (although you have to type in the name). We can use the former because of Misplaced Pages:Rs#Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. Just want to get some consensus about the rather important omission. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a reasonable path -- though it depends entirely on what sort of text you have in mind, where it would go, etc. I suggest you propose something here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The term "Consumer Direct Marketing" has no inherent meeting and is not used by other companies. It is simply an invented marketing slogan and a neologism, and as such is only of passing interest at best. The term does nothing to describe Melaleuca's buisness model in concrete terms nor does it differentiate Melaleuca's model from that of other MLM companies. In fact, their models are pretty much interchangeable. The section of text containing this term was removed, as explained in the thread I started above (why a second thread was started is a mystery to me), because it violated WP:SYNTH. I don't necessarily object to including some mention of the term, as long as it is not misleading or unduly weighted and doesn't involve WP:SYNTH like the last version did. I agree with Nomo's suggestion that any proposals should be brought first to the Talk page for discussion. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The company's business model should be described in greater detail than in the current version of the article. Neither self-published websites nor government documents are ideal sources (though allowable in this case), but I've found reliable secondary sources that describe the business model and use the phrase "consumer direct marketing". Some of these sources were cited in the paragraph that was removed. Andrew 17:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

VanderSloot's second wife

The Idaho State Journal is listing Vivian VanderSloot as his second wife, not third. "Cassie is the youngest child of Frank's second wife, Vivian VanderSloot." HtownCat (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. There's no debating that the original version published June 3, 2012 stated that Vivian was Frank's third wife ("...Frank's third wife, Vivian VanderSloot"). What a stunning coincidence that you would think to check this detail again and find that the article had been altered just a few days ago (it shows a modification date of Feb 13, 2013). Interesting too that the author did not provide a footnote explaining what he had altered in the article. Journalists don't typically make random changes to their work 8-months post-publication without acknowledging it in a "corrections" footnote. Rhode Island Red (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually - they often do just that. Since we use what the source currently says, there should be no problem from your end. Collect (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Was that speculation or based on something tangible? My experience is that reputable news sources don't do it; a print version can't be changed post publication so they announce it if and when amendments are made. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This represents a strong argument that your supposition was incorrect. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

It has been done by the New York Times, inter alia. Sorry to disillisusion you on the infallibility of reporters, but often corrections are made and often without much of a notice at all. In the case at hand, I take it you are not disputing the current version of the article - and that is what Misplaced Pages uses. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Corrections are standard practice among news outlets as diverse as the Philadelphia Inquirer,New York Post, Wall Street Journal,USA Today,LA Times, Chicago Tribune,Washington Post,New York TimesHuffington Post,Slate,and Reuters. Rhode Island Red's response fails to assume good faith. Andrew 07:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You managed to miss my point completely; did you even read what I wrote above? Corrections are standard practice in journalism; failing to clearly indicate that a correction has been made to an article (8 months after publication) is not a standard practice. Rhode Island Red (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I was making two points: 1. it is standard practice to use the most recently updated version of an article, and 2. you are not assuming good faith. I have no idea what this media outlet's policies are regarding edits or why the change was made, but I see the author's e-mail address at the top of the article. You should ask her here. Andrew 17:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not debating that the original version stated Vivian as "third wife," nor about the credibility of publications correcting their articles. Just pointing out new information. I can't find any other information on Vivian VanderSloot, so unless someone else has another source I think we should either work with this article and switch from "third" to "second" or throw out the article and delete that sentence. HtownCat (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm changing the article to reflect what the Source now says. GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Of passing interest: the same Idaho Falls residential address is listed in White Pages for Frank, Vivian and Belinda. Mormons have such cosy domestic arrangements. Writegeist (talk) 17:23, 19 February 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.
58. Cite error: The named reference Bonanza was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
59. Greenberg, Herb (9 Jan 2013). "'Don't Call Me a Multi-Level Marketer'". CNBC. Retrieved 16 January 2013.
60. Greenberg, Herb; Karina Frayter (9 Jan 2013). "Why Spotting a Pyramid Scheme Isn't So Easy". CNBC. Retrieved 16 January 2013.
61. Cite error: The named reference Caribbean was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
62. Owen, Clay (January 15, 2008). "Growing Pains". The Knoxville News Sentinel. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
63. Scoblete, Greg (August 22, 2005). "8x8 Retools Videophone Distribution Strategy". Reed Business Information. p. 6. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
64. Trademark # 76532256, United States Patent Office (June 2, 2003), "CONSUMER DIRECT MARKETING" (Trademark), Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS), Washington DC, retrieved October 18, 2012{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)

• 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