Talk:Frank VanderSloot: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 13:28, 6 June 2012 editNomoskedasticity (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers21,756 edits →stick to what the sources state ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 02:49, 25 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk \| contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,123 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|blp=yes\|class=C\|listas=VanderSloot, Frank L.\|
	{{WikiProjectBannerShell\|blp=yes\|1=
	{{WikiProject Biography~~\|living=yes\|listas=VanderSloot,~~ ~~Frank L.~~}}		{{WikiProject Biography }}
	{{WikiProject Business}}		{{WikiProject Business \|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~United~~ ~~States\|class=Start\|importance=low\|ID=yes~~\|~~ID-~~importance=~~low~~}}		{{WikiProject Marketing & Advertising \|importance=Low}}
	{{WikiProject ~~Requested~~ ~~articles~~\|~~class~~=}}		{{WikiProject United States \|importance=low \|ID=yes \|ID-importance=low}}
			}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{aan}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 100K
			\|counter = 9
			\|minthreadsleft = 2
			\|minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\|algo = old(15d)
			\|archive = Talk:Frank VanderSloot/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{Archives \|search=yes \|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III \|age=15 \|units=days \|index=/Archive index }}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index \|mask=/Archive <#> \|leading_zeros=0 \|indexhere=yes
	}}		}}
	{{Image requested\|in=Idaho}}

	==Untitled==
	I just added a link to this article: It raises ] issues, but I think it's fairly reliable, and as long as we describe it as 'allegations' rather than state it as fact, I think it can go in the article. ] (]) 19:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

	==Criticisms==
	Currently, over 50% of the criticism section are direct quotes from the subject. It should probably be focused on detailing the criticisms as opposed to the subject's responses. Additionally, I am not sure the wording conforms to community guidelines. This page will likely receive additional traffic as the subject is the media attention. However, I am not very sure what should be done. ] (]) 01:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	: I have added a summarized version of some of the complaints leveled against him, as including a section that has him responding to accusations without stating what he was accused of is pretty absurd. ] (]) 02:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	Additionally, I think the criticism should probably be moved to it's own section, as it doesn't really fit the content that surrounds it, and it's the main reason why people will be visiting the page now. ] (]) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Pyramid Selling, Multilevel Marketing, and Direct Marketing. ==

	There seems to be a little confusing about exactly how Melaleuca works, and I think this is important for the article. Some sources say it is a ] model, such as the and the . Pyramid selling links to ], which is '''not''' what these sources are saying. It looks like they are describing ], which is different enough that it's legal. Although that term has very negative connotation, I can't really find any difference between what Melaleuca does and the strict definition of multilevel marketing. Melaleuca itself uses the term ], which is a very vague article in this context. As far as I can tell, they are not explaining that it's different from multilevel marketing so much as emphasizing that the seller doesn't have to keep the product on-hand, hence direct. Since most secondary sources, even fairly flattering ones such as the use some variation of multilevel marketing I think we should go with that. This official makes it very, very clear that they use a multilevel marketing model. Just because they call it something else, it is screamingly obvious that it is a multilevel marketing company. ] (]) 05:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

	::'''Response'''. "Pyramid selling" is indeed a very negative term. Why use a term that libels the reputation of Melaleuca as well as libels the name of Frank VanderSloot when it does not at all describe the business activities of the company?

	::The Forbes article you mention is clearly an article about Frank VanderSloot, not an article on Melaleuca's business model. There is no evidence that the author of the Forbes article spent any time at all researching Melaleuca's business model. It is doubtful that she would consider herself an expert on that issue. An argument was made in Forbes the month following the month that the article appeared that pointed out that calling Melaleuca a "pyramid selling organization" was inappropriate. () While Forbes may be a reliable source for some things, its calling Melaleuca a pyramid selling organization was criticized immediately. Using an article that was immediately disputed by those who know more about the issue than the author seems to be unfair and significantly biased.

	::'''PYRAMID SELLING AND PYRAMID SCHEMES'''
	::The concepts of "pyramid scheme" (illegal) and "pyramid selling" (questionable but perhaps legal) both typically have to do with requiring some type of investment with the hope of getting several others to make the same or similar investment, thereby receiving back far more than the original investment. These types of schemes are risky, and they often damage people's lives. The risk is that after someone makes their investment, they may not be able to entice someone else to make a similar investment. They stand to lose everything that they invested. Pyramid selling, by its very nature, needs some kind of investment by its participants to build the pyramid. In Melaleuca's model there is no investment of any kind, nor is any inventory purchased. Melaleuca's model could never be deemed "pyramid selling" because it lacks any investment or outlay of cash.

	::Many MLM companies do indeed use a very similar model, requiring participants to purchase product inventory and entice others to purchase inventory. They try to legitimize their model by requiring the resale of the inventory to others. This methodology has been upheld to be legal and is called “multilevel marketing” (MLM). Melaleuca's model is the antithesis of both “MLM” and "pyramid selling" because there is no investment by participants and no reselling of product. There are, in fact, no multiple levels of distribution whatsoever (). The company sells directly to the customer. Because of that, it cannot be accurately called either "MLM" or "pyramid selling". That's why it is called "consumer direct marketing". Melaleuca’s model could correctly be described as "referring selling", but it does not engage in multilevel selling or pyramid selling.

	::According to the , pyramid selling is “a practice adopted by some manufacturers of advertising for distributors and selling them batches of goods. The first distributors then advertise for more distributors who are sold subdivisions of the original batches at an increased price. This process continues until the final distributors are left with a stock that is unsaleable except at a loss.”

	::The defines pyramid selling as: “in business, when someone buys the right to sell a company's goods, and then sells the goods to other people. These people then sell the goods to other people.”

	::Melaleuca’s business model clearly does not fit either definition.

	::Not only is Melaleuca’s business model not pyramid selling or MLM, Melaleuca’s business model is specifically designed to ''prevent'' pyramid selling and multi-level marketing. .

	::'''DIRECT SELLING & MLM VS. DIRECT MARKETING'''
	::There's a great difference between "direct ''selling''" and "''direct marketing''." Both types of selling are represented by different national associations.

	::Direct selling is defined by the as: "the sale of a consumer products or services, <em style="background-color: yellow">person-to-person</em>, away from a fixed retail location, marketed through independent sales representatives who are sometimes also referred to as consultants, distributors or other titles."

	::Since no <em style="background-color: yellow">"person-to-person"</em> sales occur in Melaleuca's model, Melaleuca's methodology could never accurately be described as "direct selling."

	::Multilevel Marketing (MLM) is defined by the as "a type of compensation plan found in <em style="background-color: yellow">direct selling</em>."

	::Since MLM is by definition is only done by <em style="background-color: yellow">direct selling</em> companies, and Melaleuca is not a direct selling company it cannot be an MLM.

	::''Direct marketing'' "is the business of selling goods or services directly to the public e.g. by direct mail, telephone, Internet sales, catalog sales, rather than through retail outlets." According to the , those activities (internet sales, telephone sales, etc) are specifically ''not'' Direct Selling. Virtually ''none'' of Melaleuca's sales occur "person-to-person." Virtually ''all'' of Melaleuca's sales occur through a physical catalogue or online catalogue. Sales occur on the internet or via the telephone directly with the company.

	::According to Misplaced Pages, ] "is a channel-agnostic form of advertising that allows businesses and nonprofits to communicate directly to the customer, with advertising techniques such as mobile messaging, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, <em style="background-color: yellow">catalog distribution</em>, promotional letters, and outdoor advertising." This describes Melaleuca's business as all of Melaleuca's sales occur through either physical catalog or online catalog and occur over the telephone or through the Internet, and all of Melaleuca's messaging to its customers occurs through, their published catalog or through mobile messages, e-mail, interactive consumer websites, online display ads, flyers, etc.

	::Melaleuca is clearly a ''direct marketing'' company but not a ''direct selling'' company.

	::Multilevel marketing has legal definitions as defined by several state statutes. All of the legal definitions from the various states refer to different levels of ''distribution''. Louisiana: LAC 16:111.503 (2010); Maryland: Md. Business Regulation Code Ann. S 14-301 (2010); Massachusetts: ALM GL ch.93, S 69(a) (2010); Montana: M.C.A. S 30-10-324(3)(c) (2010) Melaleuca does not have any multiple levels of distribution. In Melaleuca's model, product moves directly from the company to the customer. Therefore, Melaleuca's model does not fit any existing state definitions of Multilevel Marketing.

	::Describing Melaleuca's business model as "pyramid selling" is highly problematic in that it would not only be inaccurate, it is perhaps libelous because of the extreme negative connotation of that term. Using the term "MLM" to describe Melaleuca's model may not be libelous, but is clearly grossly inaccurate. ] (]) 10:23, 21 May 2012

	:::Thank you for that detailed response. I've got a few points I'd like to bring up:

	:::You're right about the term 'pyramid selling'. Although I don't believe it is libelous, it is polarizing and misleading. It was taken from the Forbes article, mainly as a compromise with someone who disagreed with the term multilevel marketing, since it was directly cited as such.

	:::First of all, I am very weary of Youtube videos being used as citations here. It's bad form for Misplaced Pages, but I'm especially cautious for this topic. You may have noticed that there are a LOT of videos about Melaleuca on Youtube, many of them are very promotional in nature, and cannot be used as a non-biased source, and most of the rest of them are blatant attacks against melaleuca (usually as a back-handed promotion for some other home-based marketing model). If we can find a video from a legitimate news organization, I would be okay, but otherwise, I don't think those are going to fly. What we need, what what we ''always'' need it seems, are reliable, neutral sources. We don't have any about Melaleuca's business model, as most sources I can find are either very vaguely in praise of VanderSloot as a businessman, or journalistic comments about his conservative political activities.

	::: What do you mean 'no "person-to-person" sales occur'? How are sales made then? My understanding is that people introduce the product line to others, who then order and receive the product from the factory-warehouse. It is still person to person, isn't it? The people involved are independent representative selling away from fixed retail organizations, aren't they? Also, you have linked to the wrong site. The Direct Sellers Association is at , and <em style="background-color: yellow">Melaleuca is a member of that organization</em>. Here is their . The important thing to note here is that I see no evidence that Melaleuca cannot be both ] and ]. The two concept are not mutually exclusive, and it appears that Melaleuca is both.

	:::As for MLM, you have described many of the reasons why MLM has a bad wrap, but those are not things that define MLM. There are many disreputable MLM companies, but that doesn't mean that all MLMs are disreputable. As I said initially, Nobody here is saying that Melaleuca is disreputable. They have made it very clear that they do not want to be considered an MLM, for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that they aren't, technically, an MLM. The definition of ], from the first sentence of the Misplaced Pages article:

	:::<blockquote>"Multi-level marketing (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sales they personally generate, but also for the sales of others they recruit, creating a downline of distributors and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."</blockquote>

	:::They may very well be the 'good guys' in the MLM world, but they distribute percentage based commission to independent sales-people, as well as the people who initially recruit those sales-people. That makes them a multilevel marketing company, end of story.] (]) 02:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

	There is another issue with the usage of the term "multilevel marketing" related to the Forbes article. The Forbes article never describes Melaleuca's business model as "multilevel marketing." The only quote even reminiscent of such a description states, "And, in a departure from many multilevel marketing schemes, VanderSloot is insistent about not burdening new recruits with huge startup costs or a garageful of inventory." () The author is identifying characteristics that distinguish Melaleuca from multilevel marketing rather than indicate its inclusion. Essentially, the citation to the Forbes article is a misquotation. (] (]) 22:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC))

	:That's a good point. The Forbes article actually says 'pyramid selling', which as RoadPeace mentions above, is misleading because of its similarity to 'pyramid scheme'. The article on MLM does list pyramid selling as another name for multilevel marketing, though, and that was the term I used at one point. Since ] is a redirect to ], I thought it would be clearer and less confrontational to change it to ] and avoid any euphemistic redirects.

	:The problem is that there are few neutral terms for it, maybe because any neutral way to describe it becomes adopted by less-scrupulous companies in order to disguise and glamorize what they do, thus debasing the new term. I'm not really entirely comfortable with using the term 'multilevel marketing', but I don't think it would be appropriate to use doublespeak that obscures what Melaleuca does, either. ] (]) 03:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

	::There's a good reason to be uncomfortable with calling Melaleuca's model "MLM" or "multilevel marketing. "Melaleuca simply does not use a multilevel marketing model. You would have to be pretty unfamiliar with MLM or with Melaleuca's model to suggest that it does.

	::To understand the term, "multilevel marketing" it may be helpful to refer to the history of that term. In the early 60s several firms sprang up that used this model. Companies like Holiday Magic and Amway sold products to distributors who resold the product to others. In the Amway model, a distributor would have to do a certain volume in order to qualify for the level of "direct distributor" which allowed them to purchase directly from the company. "Direct distributors" would purchase large quantities of product and stock that product in their garage and make it available to other distributors in their downline. Those distributors would take possession of product and move it to their own garage and make it available to distributors in their downlines. In that model, product moved from distributor to distributor. Multilevel marketing came to mean multiple levels of distribution. In today's world, in MLM companies, product often moves several levels but at least two levels, i.e. first level = from company to distributor, second-level= from distributor customer. The risk inherent here is that distributor must invest in and maintain an inventory. If the distributor cannot resell the product, they are stuck with losing money on their original investment. Most MLM companies focus on moving product to their distributors. Often, very little of that product ever gets to end consumers. Many people investing in inventories get hurt because they lose money on their investment in inventory. The direct selling Association has beefed up its code of ethics to require companies to purchase back these inventories, when distributors decide to throw in the towel and stop trying to sell the product. But many MLM's try to avoid the buyback provisions required by the DSA, therefore leaving distributors out to dry and giving MLM a bad name.

	::It is important to note that with Melaleuca there is no person-to-person sales. The company creates and handles all sales transactions. Marketing executives simply refer customers to the company. A record is kept of who referred the customer and the person making the referral gets a small commission whenever the customer buys. That is a far cry from the MLM model. A huge difference is there is no inventory kept by the marketing executive, no investment, no way to get hurt, no reselling of product, and no appearance of any MLM type activities whatsoever.

	::<em style="background-color: yellow;">Repeating the definition of Multilevel marketing in Misplaced Pages you refer to:
	::"Multilevel (MLM) is a marketing strategy in which the sales force is compensated not only for sale they personally generate but also for the sales of others they ::recruit, creating a downline of '''distributors''' and a hierarchy of multiple levels of compensation."</em>

	::The operative word here is '''"distributors"'''. To be a distributor one must '''distribute''' something. That word, alone, disqualifies Melaleuca from being multilevel marketing. Melaleuca marketing executives do not '''distribute''' anything. Therefore, they are not '''distributors'''. There is also no '''downline''' of '''distributors'''. The use of the word '''distributor''' is no accident here. All legal definitions from the various states that define MLM or multilevel marketing define it as having multiple levels of '''"distribution"'''. With there are no multiple levels of distribution and no downlines. Hence Melaleuca does not practice multilevel marketing.

	::Summary:
	::* Melaleuca does not fit the Direct Selling Association definition of Multilevel Marketing.
	::* Melaleuca’s business model does not fit any existing state or federal definition MLM.
	::* Melaleuca does not fit Misplaced Pages’s definition of MLM
	::* Melaleuca does not fit any traditional or even non-traditional definition of MLM

	::Therefore, only an extremely biased person would try to cram Melaleuca into the MLM box when it just simply does not fit. One would have to have some significant bias to continue to insist on doing that.

	::Melaleuca has aptly defined itself as operating a Consumer direct marketing model. It compensates people on referrals they make to the company. There is no valid argument that suggests that Melaleuca does not practice consumer direct marketing. And there is ample evidence that Melaleuca uses the referral marketing model to refer customers to the business. It's been doing that for 26 years. ] (]) 12:50, 24 May 2012

	:::I disagree with a major point of your contention. What you described would be accurately called 'multilevel distribution'. While MLM and 'MLD' (if you will) have been historically linked, they are not the same thing. Again, from ]:
	:::<blockquote>"Network Marketing" and "Multi-level Marketing" have been described by author Dominique Xardel as being synonymous, and as methods of direct selling. <em style="background-color: yellow;">According to Xardel, "direct selling" and "network marketing" refer to the distribution system, while the term "multi-level marketing" describes the compensation plan.</em> Other terms that are sometimes used to describe multi-level marketing include "word-of-mouth marketing", "interactive distribution", and "relationship marketing". Critics have argued that the use of different terms and "buzzwords" is an effort to distinguish multi-level marketing from illegal Ponzi schemes, chain letters, and consumer fraud scams. Some sources classify multi-level marketing as a form of direct selling rather than being direct selling.</blockquote>
	:::I don't know who the 'Direct Selling Association' is, as there website you linked to appears down at the moment. The (of which Melaleuca is a member) has numerous MLMs as members, including . If Amway is a direct seller, and also an MLM, why can't Melaleuca be the same? In fact, according to , more than 90% of direct sellers are MLMs. We are in agreement that they are direct marketers. I think their membership in the DSA shows that they are also direct sellers. So what definition of MLM are you referring to?
	:::From the :
	:::<blockquote>"Q. What is the difference between direct selling and multilevel marketing?</blockquote>
	:::<blockquote>A. Direct selling refers to a distribution method, whereas multilevel marketing refers more specifically to a type of compensation plan found in direct selling. A direct selling company that offers a multilevel compensation plan pays its representatives/distributors based not only on one's own product sales, but on the product sales of one's "downline" (the people a representative/distributor has brought into the business, and, in turn, the people they have brought into the business)."</blockquote>
	:::Melaleuca's own trade organization includes both representatives AND distributors as being viable for inclusion in MLM compensation. likewise does not make a distinction between distributor and representative for determining MLM status. I have not looked into any other government positions yet.
	:::Since I do not concede the first three points on your list, I find the last one to be flawed as well. Melaleuca fits most traditional definitions of an MLM. ] (]) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

			== External links modified ==
	::'''Response:''' You clearly do not have knowledge of which you are writing. It is called the Direct Selling Association, (not the Direct Selling Association of America.) Melaleuca Inc. is a member of several trade associations. Just because it is a member of the Direct Selling Association does not mean it is a "direct seller." In fact the associations definition for "direct selling" states that a direct seller, by definition, is involved in person-to-person sales. As pointed out above, Melaleuca's model does not include person-to-person sales. It's clear that you do not understand that. The fact that you do not understand it or do not concede it does not make it any less true. Just because Melaleuca has some things in common with direct selling, and, in general, must operate under the same laws and guidelines as direct sellers, and therefore finds it to its own advantage to be a member of the direct selling Association, does not mean it is a direct seller.

			Hello fellow Wikipedians,
	::The Montana definition that you refer to above states: "Multilevel marketing firms sell goods or services through independent agents." Again, Melaleuca does not sell goods or services through independent agents. The company handles all of the sales transactions directly with the customer. The independent agents do not sell any goods or services whatsoever. They only refer customers and register those customers with the company. They do not make sales. How many times do I have to repeat this and how many different ways do I have to say it before you understand? Melaleuca does not meet the definition of a direct selling company. Neither does it meet any definition of multilevel marketing.

			I have just modified 14 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
	::Misplaced Pages rules are that Misplaced Pages editors must come from a neutral point of view. <em style="background-color: yellow">Your repeated insistence on defining Melaleuca in a negative light makes it clear that you are not operating from a neutral point of view</em>. You have admitted that MLM has a negative connotation. “Consumer direct marketing" and "referral marketing" are much more accurate than the terms you are suggesting. Besides being far more accurate, these terms are neither positive nor negative. What is your personal stake in this? Why do you insist on using terms that do not at all define Melaleuca's model and which, by your own definition are negative terms and therefore do not come from a neutral point of view? ] (]) 9:26, 25 May 2012
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.melaleucanews.com/newmelaleucanews/2006/06/05/melaleuca-leader-enjoys-rural-roots/
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20130216081406/http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Melaleuca-Surpasses-1-Billion-in-Sales-For-Year/JKkvtcCS8EW0BM4HqyCL2A.cspx to http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Melaleuca-Surpasses-1-Billion-in-Sales-For-Year/JKkvtcCS8EW0BM4HqyCL2A.cspx
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.capitalpress.com/lvstk/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20120903174116/http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Riverbend-Ranch-to-Host-Worlds-2nd-Largest-Angus/1DLyp7SSYE2CF7CphGBTng.cspx to http://www.kpvi.com/content/news/local/story/Riverbend-Ranch-to-Host-Worlds-2nd-Largest-Angus/1DLyp7SSYE2CF7CphGBTng.cspx
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20130119125159/http://www.capitalpress.com/print/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712 to http://www.capitalpress.com/print/JO-VanderSlootRanch-022712
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129015643/http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2166581&spid=30800 to http://www.radioink.com/Article.asp?id=2166581&spid=30800
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20130119194123/http://www.capitalpress.com/newest/JO-VanderSlootDonation-082812 to http://www.capitalpress.com/newest/JO-VanderSlootDonation-082812
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://google.brand.edgar-online.com/EFX_dll/EDGARpro.dll?FetchFilingHTML1%3FID=121849&SessionID=21bnWFiwbThGKl7
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825122221/http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/behind-the-curtain-a-brief-history-of-romneys-donors/ to http://www.barackobama.com/truth-team/entry/behind-the-curtain-a-brief-history-of-romneys-donors/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614040935/http://www.kboi2.com/news/Idaho-Election-Education-Proposition-Luna-177667281.html?m=y&smobile=y to http://www.kboi2.com/news/Idaho-Election-Education-Proposition-Luna-177667281.html?m=y&smobile=y
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20130415074212/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryId=24122 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryId=24122
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620001540/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=46584 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=46584
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080726105851/http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=19167 to http://idahoptv.org/idreports/showEditorial.cfm?StoryID=19167
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607042208/http://www.ktvb.com/news/Groups-must-pay-1900-fines-for-illegal-campaigns-95564854.html to http://www.ktvb.com/news/Groups-must-pay-1900-fines-for-illegal-campaigns-95564854.html
			*Added archive https://archive.is/20130116200451/http://www.allvoices.com/news/5904565-ads-attacking-judicial-candidate-violated-state-disclosure-law-official-says to http://www.allvoices.com/news/5904565-ads-attacking-judicial-candidate-violated-state-disclosure-law-official-says
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120807092732/http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/05/07/rachel-maddow-slams-romney-campaign-chairman-for-outing-gay-reporter/ to http://lgbtweekly.com/2012/05/07/rachel-maddow-slams-romney-campaign-chairman-for-outing-gay-reporter/
			*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120607024642/http://www.authorpeterzuckerman.com/blog.htm?post=854939 to http://www.authorpeterzuckerman.com/blog.htm?post=854939
			*Added {{tlx\|dead link}} tag to http://www.nationaljournal.com/blogs/influencealley/2012/02/will-romney-s-finance-co-chair-become-a-liability--27

			When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
	:::To answer your question, I have no personal stake in this. None. Do you? I called it the Direct Selling Association of America because there are several different organization by that name based out of different countries, and my understanding is that some of the other ones are pretty sketchy. I thought it worthwhile to make it clear which one I was referring to. That's all I meant by that. As for the positive or negative connotations of MLM as a term, my point has always been that those connotations are not intrinsic to the term itself. Although the term has a lot of baggage, there is nothing illegal or inherently unethical about MLM, so if Melaleuca is MLM, we should call it that. Let me make it clear that it is not my intention, by calling Melaleuca an MLM, to cast it in a negative light. I am simply trying to describe it as what it is. So far, you're arguments against that definition haven't persuaded me that it isn't, and your repeated use of heavily promotional ] sources also fail to persuade me. Simply because everything is distributed from a central location doesn't, as I understand it, mean that the sales aren't considered 'person to person'. It's your contention that I am mistaken about that. I think it's clear we need a few additional sets of eyes on this page, so I am posting a notice on the ]. Hopefully we can get a few more experienced editors to help us out. ] (]) 21:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::Here is a link to that notice, ], for convenience. ] (]) 22:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::Arriving here from BLPN -- I agree with Grayfell's approach to this issue, and in general with the idea that we shouldn't be over-using primary sources here. ] (]) 05:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
	:The Forbes article makes it clear that the Melaleuca model is a ''departure from'' Multi-Level Marketing Schemes therefore it is not a multi-level marketing scheme but rather “''a departure from''”. It is clearly not accurate or fair to label Melaleuca an MLM when Forbes states it is a departure from that model. The term direct marketing better describes the model in that Melaleuca customers buy directly from a catalog which is definitely direct marketing.

			{{sourcecheck\|checked=false\|needhelp=}}
	:Melaleuca’s model fits all conventional definitions of ] (). Melaleuca does not meet any conventional definitions of multi-level marketing (there are no multiple levels of anything!). It doesn’t serve a NPV to label Melaleuca something that it is not.

			Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
	:Using the term MLM to define Melaleuca whose membership avidly despises the MLM model is contentious. This is extremely contentious and damages the company and Frank Vandersloot’s reputation unfairly and wrongly. WP:BLP rules state “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.” --] (]) 15:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
	::You have misread the source. It does not say "in a departure from multilevel marketing schemes", it says "<u>in a departure from ''many'' multilevel marketing schemes</u>". In other words, this article offers the view that Melaleuca is a MLM model with a difference on a single aspect. Also note that in the ''Vandersloot himself'' says that Melaleuca is a MLM firm. ] (]) 17:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
	:::I have been watching the debate on this talk page with some amusement. Suggesting that Frank VanderSloot was talking about Melaleuca, Inc when he mentioned that he was operating an MLM company documents the writer is either extremely biased or totally uninformed as to the history of Frank VanderSloot and Melaleuca. Anyone who knows the history of the company at all knows the following: In December of 1984, Frank VanderSloot was recruited by Roger Ball to join the newly-formed Oil of Melaleuca, Inc as its CEO. (That was an entirely different company than Melaleuca, Inc.) Oil of Melaleuca, Inc was a multi-level Marketing company. The company had already been operating for 3 months when Frank Became CEO in March of 1985. It was Frank’s first and only experience with MLM. The company only lasted 7 months. It had marginal success in its first few months, but then failed, partly because of its MLM model. People were purchasing inventories of starter kits, but very little product was being resold to end consumers. In August 1985, Oil of Melaleuca closed its doors. In the 5 months of operating Oil of Melaleuca, Frank VanderSloot learned a great deal about MLM. He became very critical of the fact that MLM models are usually designed to sell inventories to unsuspecting get-rich-quick wannabes rather than selling product to end-users. MLM usually requires an investment of some type and only pays off if the participant gets others to make a similar investment. The result is that the first guy in wins and the last guy in loses. Frank thought that he could design a program that still offered a business opportunity to those who referred customers, but would avoid the MLM aspects altogether. He thought that a system where the company would carry the inventory and handle all sales transactions to consumers would create a viable company where every sale was to an end user rather than end up in someone’s garage. It was a model that was more similar to the corporate world he had come from. He launched a new company in September of 1985. He tried to approach the MLM distributors who had joined Oil of Melaleuca. They felt that selling tiny amounts to customers rather than large orders to distributors would not be a viable fast track to the wealth they were seeking. They left to join various MLM opportunities then in operation. But a few of the customers of Oil of Melaleuca did stay and some eventually referred other customers. Since Melaleuca’s customer referral model was so different from MLM, and since it resembled direct marketing rather than direct sales, the new model became known as “Consumer Direct Marketing.” Besides selling directly to customers, Melaleuca implemented several other principles that would never be found in any MLM company. For example, MLM companies traditionally reward large purchases and large investments with extra bonuses and larger discounts. This factor is what gives MLM its bad name in that it induces greater investments in inventory and creates greater risk and often financial disaster for the distributers who participate. Yet it is the concept that MLM’s thrive on.

			== lead ==
	:::Melaleuca does the opposite. Not only does Melaleuca not give extra incentives to larger purchases, it does not give any commissions on sales of over $150 per month, thereby eliminating any temptation for anyone to make an investment in inventory. Such a tactic would destroy any MLM company! This is just one difference. The list of opposites between Melaleuca’s model and MLM companies is endless. Frank VanderSloot has spent the last 26 years criticizing the MLM model in that it often destroys lives and often does not produce sales to end consumers. He has criticized the MLM model to the both the US Direct Selling Association and the World Federation of Direct Sellers. He is so critical of MLM, he has offered a $ 10,000 dollar reward for anyone who can identify a single successful MLM company in the United States that has started in the last 30 years. He has publicly stated there are none. In that Melaleuca started only 26 years ago, if Melaleuca were MLM, he would be saying that Melaleuca is not successful-hardly a supportable position, given that Melaleuca hit $1 Billion dollars in sales last year.

			@Pistongrinder: "Misplaced Pages Administrator ruled in RfC to not include this in lede", please offer a link of some sort to establish this. ] (]) 06:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
	:::The point is Melaleuca is not MLM and has almost nothing in common with MLM companies other than it offers a business opportunity. It offers that opportunity in a way that can be considered the opposite of MLM. Besides being totally different, there are simply no multiple levels of anything.
			:Sure, no problem. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_term_%22multi-level_marketing%22_(MLM)_be_used_in_the_lead_section? Misplaced Pages administrator Lord Roem ruled that the term “multi-level marketing” should not be used as a descriptor in the lead section. It's found in the Talk page’s Archive 6 section.] (]) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
			::Seven-year old thread with some pretty tendentious/whitewashy/partisan arguments. Also, new sources added since then. The company is clearly an MLM and the detail is significant. No reason not to add it and good reason to include it. It's a fact and it's notable. ] (]) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::You and Nomoskedasticity were heavily involved in this RFC, which was on this exact topic. You didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue. Without consensus, the result of the prior RFC should stand. ] (]) 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::That is not an argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have some actual reason? Objection seems to defy logic and WP policy. If it's an MLM, which it is, and that's a notable fact, which it is, then why wouldn't it be included? ] (]) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::For the same reasons as the WP Admin stated before to conclude a lengthy, contentious RFC process. Lord Roem summarized his decision in this way: “No consensus for inclusion.” The Admin’s decision is just as pertinent today as it once was. In addition to WP:NOCONSENSUS, he also cited WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Lord Roem's explanation is quite clear. ] (]) 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::You do understand that "Lord" is just a user name right, and the opinion expressed 7 years ago is not an inviolable commandment? You reverted the edit, so you should have a clear reason that you can articulate other than (paraphrasing) "because Lord said so 7 years ago" and "no consensus". The inclusion of MLM certainly does not violate ] nor ] so if that was presented as justification for omitting it 7 years ago, it was a poor reason. If you are standing in the way of a consensus, you cannot use "no consensus" as the reason as its circular logic. A content-based argument is required. ] (]) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::The WP Administrator reviewed arguments on this exact topic from 18 different editors (previously involved and uninvolved editors) during that RFC, including 39 comments that you personally made. The Talk page history (Archive 6) shows you dominated the conversation, responding to virtually everyone who disagreed with you. Although you made the exact arguments then that you’re making today, the Admin still ruled it didn’t belong in the lead for a variety of reasons. I don’t need to repeat his reasons since they’re clear in the ruling. Furthermore, it’s a gross characterization to claim that I’m “standing in the way of a consensus,” since several editors agreed and argued that it didn’t belong there. A consensus was reached after vigorous, contentious debate – that’s what Misplaced Pages’s RFC process is all about. What’s more, even though you clearly knew about the RFC and the Admin’s decision, you still put the term back in the lead a few days ago without even asking editors for consensus. That should not have happened. ] (]) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::I am not asking you to refer back to a 7-year old discussion. It is you who is now the lone voice standing in the way of reaching a new consensus, so it incumbent on you to provide a specific rationale. If you have no personal objections, then we have a new consensus. If you do have objections, then you need to delineate what they are. Merely saying ] or ] is not a valid justification. The company is an MLM; Vandersloot is referred to in the media as the "king" and "baron" of multi-level marketing. What possible reason can there be for not including the term that accurately describes his business? ] (]) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::No, you do not get to unilaterally set terms for this discussion. Why did you put the MLM term back in the lead before asking other editors for consensus even though a RFC decision had been made? Not cool. It doesn’t matter that it’s 7 years old if the topic is EXACTLY the same. If the argument is still the same, then the result should still be the same. Why do you claim the Admin’s rationale is not a valid justification even though he studied all sides of the issue? Like I said before, you didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue.

			:::::::::Here’s a portion of the Admin's ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#Editing_comments: 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.
	:::Melaleuca is successful partly because it is not MLM. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			:::::::::I agree with the Misplaced Pages Administrator over you. I am not alone. The record shows that many other editors took positions to not insert the term into the lead. ] (]) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
	::::Once again, we see someone using certain characteristics common to most MLMs as a generalized reason why Melaleuca somehow can't possible be a MLM. Find me a definition of MLM (from a reputable source, and NOT from a Meleleuca website!) that matches this line of thought, and bring it here. The idea that all of these finicky subtleties about how much is or isn't delivered at a time, or how strongly VanderSloot rejects the label, or the fact that they order from a catalog or website instead of from someone's garage, all miss the most important point. Multilevel marketing is about paying people who make sales a commission, and also paying the people who recruited those people a commission. By that reasoning, Melaleuca is a MLM company. ] (]) 01:11, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
			::::::::::Like I said, I'm interested in your editorial rationale for removing the term recently; not what was said in a discussion from 7 years ago, although upon reviewing it, there was a solid consensus recognizing that the company is an MLM and it was apparent that 80% of uninvolved editors favored inclusion of the term. The admin in that context merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus, and in this case the admin's summary seemed off base, especially given that there were some highly partisan editors involved in the discussion. That happens, and consensus can change over time, especially as new sources are published; and 7-year old admin opinions are not immutable by any stretch. Now 7 years later you are the lone opponent. Nonetheless, you have now elaborated that you think the term should not be included because ]. Could you kindly elaborate in what way you think it is undue because I see no basis for that argument? ] (]) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
			{{od}}Pistongrinder might want to have a look at ]. ] (]) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
			: A few thoughts on recent comments and following the right process in making this kind of potentially contentious change. First, I believe the Administrator’s role was significantly more than a “vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” It appears there had been strong arguments on both sides for years over the MLM issue, and because the editors on the page could not gain consensus, it was brought to a dispute resolution RFC for fresh eyes and uninvolved editors. The Admin had a role larger than “vote counter,” which any idiot could do. Admins have built up a trust factor and their level of experience and insight is helpful. You led the charge on one side, being the most vocal proponent for including it in the lead. You made 39 comments – far more than anybody else – ensuring that your voice was amply heard. Once the ruling was issued, it appears that numerous editors followed that direction and the page achieved consensus for 7 years.
			:Second, I understand ] - consensus can change. It was good to review it again. The Admin pointed out that ruling could change if new facts emerge and a new consensus was later obtained by editors to determine if MLM belongs in the lead. But I have not seen any new facts convincing me that adding the term MLM, which the Administrator thought was being used as an attack & most likely had a negative connotation, now meets the standard of being sufficiently “important and necessary” for this particular BLP.
			:Third, the Admin argued that it created ] because “its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.” Even more important, he reasoned: “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. Per ], ‘or 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.’ As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.”
			:In summary, the Administrator’s several points of Misplaced Pages policy seems reasonable and appropriate to me. In your last post, you said “in this case the admin's summary seemed off base,” but I don’t agree. I thought his summary was thoughtful and conservative. That direction still makes sense to me today on the subject of a BLP. For those reasons, I recommend that we keep it out of the BLP’s lead. ] (]) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
			::Again, I didn't ask for a recap of the conversation from 7 years ago, in which all but one uninvolved editor thought MLM belonged in the lead. I wanted you to clarify what your reason was for reverting, and it appears that you are saying, in a roundabout way, that you think it's ]. Is that in fact the case? If so, it's probably time for to take this up again in some form of dispute resolution. Just want to know exactly where you stand before the process is initiated. Anything else to add? ] (]) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::::There isn’t any federal law that defines “MLM”. Without a clear definition, the term doesn’t help to explain the “most important content” as required by ]. ] (]) • 02:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			::::::::::::Completely irrelevant. We simply go by the fact that multiple ] refer to it as an MLM; we don't second guess by inventing an arbitrary standard about what may or may not constitute a "legal" definition of MLM. More importantly, the previous consensus was that it is in an MLM -- that is no longer in dispute and MLM has long been included in the body text describing Melaleuca. The resistance to including MLM in the lead now is from one editor who seems to think that it's an issue of ], which I vehemently disagree with. The company is an MLM; MLM is an important defining characteristic; and that MLM company is what VS is arguably most famous for -- he's even referred to in the press as the king of MLM and the baron of MLM. It strikes me as profoundly illogical, and whitewashing, to not include it in the lead. ] (]) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::::::Why is this term so important when it doesn’t even have a legally agreed-upon definition? It doesn’t belong in the lede of the BLP. Indeed, to include that legally disputed term in the lede violates the instruction that a lede section should be written “with a neutral point of view.” And because there is no agreed-upon legal definition of the term, including it in the lede necessarily brings in “ontentious material . . . that is . . . poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” and it “should be removed immediately.” Thus, contrary to your statement, the fact that there is no legally agreed-upon definition is in no way “completely irrelevant”—just the opposite: it directly supports the position that the term should be excluded from the lede. ] (]) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
			::: Interesting that you used the term whitewashing because I find that your summary of the situation does just that. I reviewed the RFC and nine editors (previously involved and uninvolved) supported keeping it out of the lead. You’re now trying to make it appear that virtually nobody was in support of keeping it out of the lead, which is simply not true. You also inaccurately wrote the Administrator “merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” C’mon. Nobody believes that ridiculous statement. And lastly, it’s little wonder that you’re not interested in a “recap of the conversation 7 years ago,” since the Admin's gave reasons for the decision, ruled against your opinions, and interpreted WP policy completely different than you.
			:::Another key point: After the RFC closed and discord followed, Lord Roem wrote on page 6 of the Talk Page Archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6) , “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.”
			:::In another statement, he wrote: “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.'''”
			:::When pushed yet again, the Admin wrote, “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.'''
			:::For the record, who were the two editors arguing the hardest in the RFC and then who vehemently disagreed with the Admin? It just happens to be the two editors who are here doing it again, falsely claiming a consensus. No wonder you want to disregard the previous RFC, despite the Admin’s ruling that the “may violate our BLP policy.” This Misplaced Pages Administrator took strong positions on this exact topic, and he literally warned you against it and wrote "you may not add in the contested term." ] (]) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::Again, not interested in the recap (which ignored that a super-majority of uninvolved editors supported inclusion) of the discussion from 7 years ago. Only interested in the current discussion about your precise policy position on the issue of MLM in the lead, which seems to be ]. I don't agree but just want clarity before we open this up to a broader audience to see if we can reach a consensus. ] (]) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::Based on RfC verdict, there probably shouldn't be a descriptor for the company in the lede at all. That obviously is taken care of in a later section. But if there were to be descriptor for the company in the lede, it would be appropriate to describe it in the way that the Associated Press does. The AP is a neutral source of factual, accurate reporting. 1. "VanderSloot is the founder of the wellness shopping club Melaleuca":https://apnews.com/61b493a32a79bcce29afdfd6fd33c4ad 2. “Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, founder of Idaho Falls-based wellness shopping club Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/1be9cfee5e26ff7c4f301ecb5551e0a7 3. VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/740cad4f38334593b502bc9927af8a8f/Idaho-billionaire-VanderSloot-staying-out-of-governor's-race. None of these AP reporters use "multilevel marketing" to describe Melaleuca. Although some editors here claim that MLM is the most distinguishing element of vandersloot and his company, that's not how the Associated Press writes it. Since we're trying to create an unbiased POV on a BLP, we should look at these examples.] (]) 20:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::The RfC saw no significant opposition regarding the company being an MLM. That point is well established and was widely agreed upon -- the only issue was whether or not in belonged in the lead. APs wording is an isolated non-representative example. It is not widely referred to as a "wellness shopping club" nor does that term have any tangible encyclopedic meaning, so that would not be a step in the right direction IMO. It certainly has nothing to do with "health care" -- that's quite absurd. ] (]) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::My point wasn’t to push an alternate term for the lede, but rather show that journalists at top news sites like the Associated Press refer to it in ways that usually don't include the term MLM. In addition to examples from the Associated Press, here’s a recent USA Today reference - “billionaire Frank Vandersloot, founder of wellness shopping club Melaleuca” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/50-states/2020/04/26/businesses-reopen-parked-planes-coughing-criminals-hasbro-masks-news-around-states/111626130/) Another example is in today’s Idaho Statesman. It says “Frank VanderSloot, CEO of Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls wellness-products maker”. Contrary to your previous statement, singling-out the "MLM" term as the most defining characteristic is not accurate as the Associated Press, USA Today and Idaho Statesman stories show. Since it’s not how these top news sites call it, it’s unneeded for the lede section.] (]) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::In the last RfC, the fact that the company is an MLM was recognized by broad consensus. The issue ultimately boiled down to whether or not including the term in the lead was ], not whether or not the company is an MLM, and while 4 out of uninvolved editors supported inclusion in the lead, the admin, for reasons that are still murky, claimed that there was insufficient consensus for inclusion in the lead. It’s also clear that while the company is an MLM, Vandersloot apparently prefers that it not be referred to as such because of (well-deserved) negative public perceptions about MLM, and the press sometimes obliges by using other nebulous terms, or even ridiculous non-encyclopedic promotional language (like “wellness shopping club” in your example), but that doesn’t change the facts/reality nor the conclusions of the last RfC. I think the only way we’ll get consensus on this matter is through another RfC and input from uninvolved editors. ] (]) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::Wow! A far-fetched claim to say Vandersloot has the power to “oblige” journalists from top news sites like the Associated Press and USA Today to write a certain way about Melaleuca. Where’s the proof for that conspiracy theory?] (]) 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
			:::::::::@Rhode Island Red – Your last post concedes my point that because “MLM” lacks a legally agreed-upon meaning, it should not be in the lead. Specifically, your post criticizes some reporters (including reporters from the Associated Press(!)) for using the term “wellness shopping club” because, to use your phrase, that term is “non-encyclopedic.” If a “non-encyclopedic” term should not be used to describe Melaleuca, a term with no legally agreed-upon meaning should likewise not be used to describe the company—especially in the lead of a Misplaced Pages article about a living person. Your post also editorializes about MLMs (“(well-deserved) negative public perceptions”), confirming that the term, which, again lacks any kind of legally agreed-upon meaning (or any non-legal agreed-upon meaning, for that matter), is not a neutral one and is thus, inappropriate for the lead. But you are right on one point: nothing in the current debate changes the facts/reality or conclusions of the last RfC. That reasoned decision came out against your position, and you’ve offered no basis—apart from calling the admin’s explanation “murky”—why another RfC is warranted at this point. ] (]) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
			::::::::::I conceded nothing of the kind and I find this argument about legal definitions perplexing to the extreme. It is an arbitrary construct and has no basis in WP policy (or logic, I would argue). Aside from that, the fact that Melaleuca was overwhelmingly recognized as an MLM in the RfC bypasses the legal argument completely – i.e., definition of MLM notwithstanding, the WP editorial community by consensus agreed that it is an MLM.
			::::::::::The admins reasoning was murky because it went against the conclusions of the 4 out of 5 uninvolved editors (a super-majority) who supported inclusion in the lead, and getting the input of uninvolved editors is arguably the most important goal of an RfC. The fact that specious arguments, expressed vociferously, are being used here now indicates precisely why another RfC may be needed, and no permission is needed to launch one. RfC should be warmly embraced, as the more editors involved, the better the article, typically at least. ] (]) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

			It seems that there are potential user conduct issues here that are impeding the editorial process on this article. We now have 3 user different accounts fighting vehemently against inclusion of MLM in the lead, but it appears that all are novice editors and all are ] accounts reactivated in the past couple of weeks.
	== Mormon pedophiles ==

			*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 2 years (144 total edits since registering 11/4/2015)
	Claims linking any living person to support for "Mormon pedophiles/ Boy Scouts of America" is, IMO, a contentious claim requiring exceedingly strong sources - whcih are ''not'' provided. I suggest that this claim is a gros and egregious violation of ] and the edit warriors placing it in this article are violating ] in a gross and egregious manner. Cheers. ] (]) 13:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 1 year (474 total edits since registering 8/28/2014)
	:Re edit-warriors -- at this point you're the only one who has repeated any edits re this topic. ] (]) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
			*: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for 6 months (1,206 total edits since registering 8/8/2014)

			Oddly, all of these users seems to have an acquaintance with WP policies and this article’s history that goes well beyond what one would expect from greenhorn editors. Just sounding the warning that if there is any obstruction from these users going forward, the next step will be a user conduct RfC. I don’t know if the issues we’re having here are due to the inexperience of these editors with WP P&Ps or if it goes beyond that, but it’s clear that there’s no point going through the motions of consensus building until this issue is resolved. Since this is a user conduct issue rather than a editorial issue, there is no point in engaging in further discussion about it on this talk page, but it is important that other editors be made aware of the background details and the implications. ] (]) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
	: I don't see him supporting anyone, I see him as being quoted as "purchased multiple full-page advertisement in the investigating local paper discussing, among other things, the sexual orientation of the journalist breaking the story." Is this not true? It's incredibly well sourced. ] (]) 13:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

			:If I didn't know any better, it would be possible to read your statement as some sort of compliment because apparently it's unusual for a "greenhorn editor" like me to have an understanding of WP policies. Here's my secret to figuring it out so well: I know how to read and google. And given the global crisis, I have a little time on my hands. Maybe you do too?!] (]) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

			::@RhodeIslandRed - Your conspiracy theories hardly deserve my time or response. And I know how argumentative you can be: we’ve tangled on this page over the years. But to correct the record, I want to make it clear that you’re the one that recently jumpstarted this page after years of minor activity to re-start the same debate you lost before.
	::You did not see the claim:
	:::'''VanderSloot has also been criticized for his response to a series that exposed Mormon pedophiles working with children as part of the Boy Scouts of America''' ?
	::I rather thought the linkage of VanderSloot to "Mormon pedophiles" was quite clear there indeed -- but you ''missed'' it? YMMV. ] (]) 13:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

			::It is beyond curious to me that you're the most dominant editor of this page (39% authorship), yet you’re trying to call me out for making a couple of recent edits—edits that were only intended to preserve the status quo and follow the prior RfC process. You've made 543 edits to the page, while I've made 4.
	Since the BLP post has gotten stale I'm copying my thoughts here in case they are of value:
	* To me it appears that we have two weak sources. A local newspaper (circulation 26,000) that is in direct dispute with the BLP subject and a psuedo-editorial by Salon (a web site that describes itself as "combining award-winning commentary and reporting"). These are not sufficient sources for contentious BLP information. In addition the current text as cited above is selective in its content and creates bias. However... I would support a neutral summary of the non-contentious information from the two sources being discussed, which I would word as follows:
	*In 2005, Vanderloot challenged local news coverage of an event involving pedophiles and the Boy Scouts of American by placing 6 full page ads in the Post Register. In February 2012, Vaderloot was criticized by Glenn Greenwald of Salon, for his "chronic bullying" tactics and "frivolous lawsuits against his political critics".--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 00:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

			::It seems that your M.O. is to attempt to intimidate, criticize, and dismiss anybody who has a difference of opinion with you. You did that to me years ago when I originally founded this page, and you’re trying to do it again. Anybody who looks at this situation will see your actions appear very close to page ownership ]. ] (]) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
	In order to support any claim of "frivolous lawsuits" we would need a source actually showing that such lawsuits were made and deemed frivolous by a court ("frivolous lawsuit" is a legal phrase with a precise meaning - we ought not perpetuate an incorrect usage of the term without strong sourcing for such a legally contentious claim.)
	:''VanderSloot placed paid advertisements criticising articles linking child abuse with the Boy Scouts'' is what likely is sourceable.
	No "frivolous lawsuit" charges even as opinion sans actual reliable sourcing that such lawsuits were filed and deemed "frivolous." Cheers. ] (]) 01:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
	::I think you are correct. I believe WP:BLP specifies that lawsuits should be conclusive before being reported in a BLP and good sources are needed. And your proposed wording of the child abuse and Boy Scout thing is also better than what I suggested.--<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS,sans -serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 17:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

			:::No one advanced a conspiracy theory and your response (accusation of ]) is bizarre to say the least, given that it was I who suggested getting more experienced editors involved to resolve the dispute in an RfC. However, the consensus building process is only effective when the people involved have enough experience to understand WP policies and keep their biases in check. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The counterarguments advanced so far (e.g., MLM doesn’t have a legal definition, etc.) are tendentious to say the least. No need to get up in arms about the suggestion to invite a broader group of experienced editors to weigh in; that’s how WP is supposed to function.
	== stick to what the sources state ==
			:::The current dispute boils down to 2 very simple points: (1) it is established that the company is an MLM according to multiple ] and as recognized by a broad consensus of editors, and this detail has been included in the body text of the article for roughly 7 years; (2) as such, why would it be undue to include that simple and notable descriptor in the lead, the same way that is in articles on every other MLM? All the complaining and gnashing of teeth over this is completely unnecessary and a distraction since it’s a very simple editorial question at hand. No need for histrionics, just well thought out feedback from unbiased editors who understand WP P&Ps. ] (]) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

			::::It is fascinating to watch how quickly you change tactics. After you get shutdown on the substance of the debate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, calling people “sleeper accounts.” Just as quickly, when those you call “sleeper accounts” point out how transparently biased you are on this subject (543 edits to 4!), you turn again to your tired arguments on the merits of this issue. It gives one whiplash. How can you seriously accuse others of “gnashing of teeth” and “histrionics” when your editing and talk history reveals a near obsession on the person and company? You don’t get to own this page and accuse others of improprieties when they push back on you.] (]) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
	The 'Mormon pedophiles" stuff was not even supported by the article cited - which said the articles were about the national BSA and the Grand Teton Council and a single pedophile - and were not about "mormon pedophiles" - the wording now conforms precisely with the sources used. Cheers. ] (])
			:::::Yet another comment that avoids confronting the simple fundamental editorial question posed above. Yes histrionics indeed; and not constructive. The accounts were referred to as sleepers because that is what they are by WP definition, and feigned indignation doesn't change that fact. Again, just focus on the editorial issue please. Want to get all the sleepers positions on record before this moves to RfC. ] (])
	:The previous version was fine, perfectly in conformity with the source (as indeed was the one before today's edits). ] (]) 12:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
	: Collect, did you review the source material carefully? It never mentions multiple pedophiles? This would be a serious breach by Nomoskedasticity - misrepresenting sources like that. Can you confirm the source never states that the paper secured evidence about more than one recent pedophile? ] (]) 13:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
	::I've added a reference to the Post-Register series of articles, so that readers here can see directly for themselves what sort of people VanderSloot was defending. ] (]) 13:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:49, 25 February 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated C-class 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 Low‑importance

	Business portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing 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.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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.

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 2 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Frank L. VanderSloot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

lead

@Pistongrinder: "Misplaced Pages Administrator ruled in RfC to not include this in lede", please offer a link of some sort to establish this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Here is the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#RFC:_Should_the_term_%22multi-level_marketing%22_(MLM)_be_used_in_the_lead_section? Misplaced Pages administrator Lord Roem ruled that the term “multi-level marketing” should not be used as a descriptor in the lead section. It's found in the Talk page’s Archive 6 section.Pistongrinder (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Seven-year old thread with some pretty tendentious/whitewashy/partisan arguments. Also, new sources added since then. The company is clearly an MLM and the detail is significant. No reason not to add it and good reason to include it. It's a fact and it's notable. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

You and Nomoskedasticity were heavily involved in this RFC, which was on this exact topic. You didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue. Without consensus, the result of the prior RFC should stand. Pistongrinder (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

That is not an argument as to why it shouldn't be included. Do you have some actual reason? Objection seems to defy logic and WP policy. If it's an MLM, which it is, and that's a notable fact, which it is, then why wouldn't it be included? Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

For the same reasons as the WP Admin stated before to conclude a lengthy, contentious RFC process. Lord Roem summarized his decision in this way: “No consensus for inclusion.” The Admin’s decision is just as pertinent today as it once was. In addition to WP:NOCONSENSUS, he also cited WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Lord Roem's explanation is quite clear. Pistongrinder (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

You do understand that "Lord" is just a user name right, and the opinion expressed 7 years ago is not an inviolable commandment? You reverted the edit, so you should have a clear reason that you can articulate other than (paraphrasing) "because Lord said so 7 years ago" and "no consensus". The inclusion of MLM certainly does not violate WP:LEAD nor WP:UNDUE so if that was presented as justification for omitting it 7 years ago, it was a poor reason. If you are standing in the way of a consensus, you cannot use "no consensus" as the reason as its circular logic. A content-based argument is required. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The WP Administrator reviewed arguments on this exact topic from 18 different editors (previously involved and uninvolved editors) during that RFC, including 39 comments that you personally made. The Talk page history (Archive 6) shows you dominated the conversation, responding to virtually everyone who disagreed with you. Although you made the exact arguments then that you’re making today, the Admin still ruled it didn’t belong in the lead for a variety of reasons. I don’t need to repeat his reasons since they’re clear in the ruling. Furthermore, it’s a gross characterization to claim that I’m “standing in the way of a consensus,” since several editors agreed and argued that it didn’t belong there. A consensus was reached after vigorous, contentious debate – that’s what Misplaced Pages’s RFC process is all about. What’s more, even though you clearly knew about the RFC and the Admin’s decision, you still put the term back in the lead a few days ago without even asking editors for consensus. That should not have happened. Pistongrinder (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I am not asking you to refer back to a 7-year old discussion. It is you who is now the lone voice standing in the way of reaching a new consensus, so it incumbent on you to provide a specific rationale. If you have no personal objections, then we have a new consensus. If you do have objections, then you need to delineate what they are. Merely saying WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE is not a valid justification. The company is an MLM; Vandersloot is referred to in the media as the "king" and "baron" of multi-level marketing. What possible reason can there be for not including the term that accurately describes his business? Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

No, you do not get to unilaterally set terms for this discussion. Why did you put the MLM term back in the lead before asking other editors for consensus even though a RFC decision had been made? Not cool. It doesn’t matter that it’s 7 years old if the topic is EXACTLY the same. If the argument is still the same, then the result should still be the same. Why do you claim the Admin’s rationale is not a valid justification even though he studied all sides of the issue? Like I said before, you didn’t like the result then or now but that’s not a justification for change on this issue.

Here’s a portion of the Admin's ruling: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6#Editing_comments: 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.

I agree with the Misplaced Pages Administrator over you. I am not alone. The record shows that many other editors took positions to not insert the term into the lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm interested in your editorial rationale for removing the term recently; not what was said in a discussion from 7 years ago, although upon reviewing it, there was a solid consensus recognizing that the company is an MLM and it was apparent that 80% of uninvolved editors favored inclusion of the term. The admin in that context merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus, and in this case the admin's summary seemed off base, especially given that there were some highly partisan editors involved in the discussion. That happens, and consensus can change over time, especially as new sources are published; and 7-year old admin opinions are not immutable by any stretch. Now 7 years later you are the lone opponent. Nonetheless, you have now elaborated that you think the term should not be included because WP:UNDUE. Could you kindly elaborate in what way you think it is undue because I see no basis for that argument? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Pistongrinder might want to have a look at WP:CCC. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

A few thoughts on recent comments and following the right process in making this kind of potentially contentious change. First, I believe the Administrator’s role was significantly more than a “vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” It appears there had been strong arguments on both sides for years over the MLM issue, and because the editors on the page could not gain consensus, it was brought to a dispute resolution RFC for fresh eyes and uninvolved editors. The Admin had a role larger than “vote counter,” which any idiot could do. Admins have built up a trust factor and their level of experience and insight is helpful. You led the charge on one side, being the most vocal proponent for including it in the lead. You made 39 comments – far more than anybody else – ensuring that your voice was amply heard. Once the ruling was issued, it appears that numerous editors followed that direction and the page achieved consensus for 7 years.

Second, I understand WP:CCC - consensus can change. It was good to review it again. The Admin pointed out that ruling could change if new facts emerge and a new consensus was later obtained by editors to determine if MLM belongs in the lead. But I have not seen any new facts convincing me that adding the term MLM, which the Administrator thought was being used as an attack & most likely had a negative connotation, now meets the standard of being sufficiently “important and necessary” for this particular BLP.

Third, the Admin argued that it created WP: UNDUE because “its inclusion in the lede would give undue focus to something that the sources only discuss tangentially.” Even more important, he reasoned: “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. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS, ‘or 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.’ As there is no necessity in including this term, I believe there is no reason to depart from that practice in removing the disputed wording.”

In summary, the Administrator’s several points of Misplaced Pages policy seems reasonable and appropriate to me. In your last post, you said “in this case the admin's summary seemed off base,” but I don’t agree. I thought his summary was thoughtful and conservative. That direction still makes sense to me today on the subject of a BLP. For those reasons, I recommend that we keep it out of the BLP’s lead. Pistongrinder (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, I didn't ask for a recap of the conversation from 7 years ago, in which all but one uninvolved editor thought MLM belonged in the lead. I wanted you to clarify what your reason was for reverting, and it appears that you are saying, in a roundabout way, that you think it's WP:UNDUE. Is that in fact the case? If so, it's probably time for to take this up again in some form of dispute resolution. Just want to know exactly where you stand before the process is initiated. Anything else to add? Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

There isn’t any federal law that defines “MLM”. Without a clear definition, the term doesn’t help to explain the “most important content” as required by WP:LEDE. Jurisdicta (talk) • 02:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant. We simply go by the fact that multiple WP:RS refer to it as an MLM; we don't second guess by inventing an arbitrary standard about what may or may not constitute a "legal" definition of MLM. More importantly, the previous consensus was that it is in an MLM -- that is no longer in dispute and MLM has long been included in the body text describing Melaleuca. The resistance to including MLM in the lead now is from one editor who seems to think that it's an issue of WP:UNDUE, which I vehemently disagree with. The company is an MLM; MLM is an important defining characteristic; and that MLM company is what VS is arguably most famous for -- he's even referred to in the press as the king of MLM and the baron of MLM. It strikes me as profoundly illogical, and whitewashing, to not include it in the lead. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Why is this term so important when it doesn’t even have a legally agreed-upon definition? It doesn’t belong in the lede of the BLP. Indeed, to include that legally disputed term in the lede violates the instruction that a lede section should be written “with a neutral point of view.” And because there is no agreed-upon legal definition of the term, including it in the lede necessarily brings in “ontentious material . . . that is . . . poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable” and it “should be removed immediately.” Thus, contrary to your statement, the fact that there is no legally agreed-upon definition is in no way “completely irrelevant”—just the opposite: it directly supports the position that the term should be excluded from the lede. Jurisdicta (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Interesting that you used the term whitewashing because I find that your summary of the situation does just that. I reviewed the RFC and nine editors (previously involved and uninvolved) supported keeping it out of the lead. You’re now trying to make it appear that virtually nobody was in support of keeping it out of the lead, which is simply not true. You also inaccurately wrote the Administrator “merely serves as a vote counter who summarizes the consensus.” C’mon. Nobody believes that ridiculous statement. And lastly, it’s little wonder that you’re not interested in a “recap of the conversation 7 years ago,” since the Admin's gave reasons for the decision, ruled against your opinions, and interpreted WP policy completely different than you.

Another key point: After the RFC closed and discord followed, Lord Roem wrote on page 6 of the Talk Page Archive (https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Frank_L._VanderSloot/Archive_6) , “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.”

In another statement, he wrote: “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.”

When pushed yet again, the Admin wrote, “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.

For the record, who were the two editors arguing the hardest in the RFC and then who vehemently disagreed with the Admin? It just happens to be the two editors who are here doing it again, falsely claiming a consensus. No wonder you want to disregard the previous RFC, despite the Admin’s ruling that the “may violate our BLP policy.” This Misplaced Pages Administrator took strong positions on this exact topic, and he literally warned you against it and wrote "you may not add in the contested term." Pistongrinder (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Again, not interested in the recap (which ignored that a super-majority of uninvolved editors supported inclusion) of the discussion from 7 years ago. Only interested in the current discussion about your precise policy position on the issue of MLM in the lead, which seems to be WP:UNDUE. I don't agree but just want clarity before we open this up to a broader audience to see if we can reach a consensus. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Based on RfC verdict, there probably shouldn't be a descriptor for the company in the lede at all. That obviously is taken care of in a later section. But if there were to be descriptor for the company in the lede, it would be appropriate to describe it in the way that the Associated Press does. The AP is a neutral source of factual, accurate reporting. 1. "VanderSloot is the founder of the wellness shopping club Melaleuca":https://apnews.com/61b493a32a79bcce29afdfd6fd33c4ad 2. “Billionaire Frank VanderSloot, founder of Idaho Falls-based wellness shopping club Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/1be9cfee5e26ff7c4f301ecb5551e0a7 3. VanderSloot, founder and chief executive of the health care products company Melaleuca, https://apnews.com/740cad4f38334593b502bc9927af8a8f/Idaho-billionaire-VanderSloot-staying-out-of-governor's-race. None of these AP reporters use "multilevel marketing" to describe Melaleuca. Although some editors here claim that MLM is the most distinguishing element of vandersloot and his company, that's not how the Associated Press writes it. Since we're trying to create an unbiased POV on a BLP, we should look at these examples.Writethisway (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

The RfC saw no significant opposition regarding the company being an MLM. That point is well established and was widely agreed upon -- the only issue was whether or not in belonged in the lead. APs wording is an isolated non-representative example. It is not widely referred to as a "wellness shopping club" nor does that term have any tangible encyclopedic meaning, so that would not be a step in the right direction IMO. It certainly has nothing to do with "health care" -- that's quite absurd. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

My point wasn’t to push an alternate term for the lede, but rather show that journalists at top news sites like the Associated Press refer to it in ways that usually don't include the term MLM. In addition to examples from the Associated Press, here’s a recent USA Today reference - “billionaire Frank Vandersloot, founder of wellness shopping club Melaleuca” (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/50-states/2020/04/26/businesses-reopen-parked-planes-coughing-criminals-hasbro-masks-news-around-states/111626130/) Another example is in today’s Idaho Statesman. It says “Frank VanderSloot, CEO of Melaleuca Inc., an Idaho Falls wellness-products maker”. Contrary to your previous statement, singling-out the "MLM" term as the most defining characteristic is not accurate as the Associated Press, USA Today and Idaho Statesman stories show. Since it’s not how these top news sites call it, it’s unneeded for the lede section.Writethisway (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

In the last RfC, the fact that the company is an MLM was recognized by broad consensus. The issue ultimately boiled down to whether or not including the term in the lead was WP:UNDUE, not whether or not the company is an MLM, and while 4 out of uninvolved editors supported inclusion in the lead, the admin, for reasons that are still murky, claimed that there was insufficient consensus for inclusion in the lead. It’s also clear that while the company is an MLM, Vandersloot apparently prefers that it not be referred to as such because of (well-deserved) negative public perceptions about MLM, and the press sometimes obliges by using other nebulous terms, or even ridiculous non-encyclopedic promotional language (like “wellness shopping club” in your example), but that doesn’t change the facts/reality nor the conclusions of the last RfC. I think the only way we’ll get consensus on this matter is through another RfC and input from uninvolved editors. Rhode Island Red (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! A far-fetched claim to say Vandersloot has the power to “oblige” journalists from top news sites like the Associated Press and USA Today to write a certain way about Melaleuca. Where’s the proof for that conspiracy theory?Writethisway (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Rhode Island Red – Your last post concedes my point that because “MLM” lacks a legally agreed-upon meaning, it should not be in the lead. Specifically, your post criticizes some reporters (including reporters from the Associated Press(!)) for using the term “wellness shopping club” because, to use your phrase, that term is “non-encyclopedic.” If a “non-encyclopedic” term should not be used to describe Melaleuca, a term with no legally agreed-upon meaning should likewise not be used to describe the company—especially in the lead of a Misplaced Pages article about a living person. Your post also editorializes about MLMs (“(well-deserved) negative public perceptions”), confirming that the term, which, again lacks any kind of legally agreed-upon meaning (or any non-legal agreed-upon meaning, for that matter), is not a neutral one and is thus, inappropriate for the lead. But you are right on one point: nothing in the current debate changes the facts/reality or conclusions of the last RfC. That reasoned decision came out against your position, and you’ve offered no basis—apart from calling the admin’s explanation “murky”—why another RfC is warranted at this point. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I conceded nothing of the kind and I find this argument about legal definitions perplexing to the extreme. It is an arbitrary construct and has no basis in WP policy (or logic, I would argue). Aside from that, the fact that Melaleuca was overwhelmingly recognized as an MLM in the RfC bypasses the legal argument completely – i.e., definition of MLM notwithstanding, the WP editorial community by consensus agreed that it is an MLM.

The admins reasoning was murky because it went against the conclusions of the 4 out of 5 uninvolved editors (a super-majority) who supported inclusion in the lead, and getting the input of uninvolved editors is arguably the most important goal of an RfC. The fact that specious arguments, expressed vociferously, are being used here now indicates precisely why another RfC may be needed, and no permission is needed to launch one. RfC should be warmly embraced, as the more editors involved, the better the article, typically at least. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It seems that there are potential user conduct issues here that are impeding the editorial process on this article. We now have 3 user different accounts fighting vehemently against inclusion of MLM in the lead, but it appears that all are novice editors and all are WP:SLEEPER accounts reactivated in the past couple of weeks.

Writethisway: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 2 years (144 total edits since registering 11/4/2015)
Jurisdicta: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for more than 1 year (474 total edits since registering 8/28/2014)
Pistongrinder: Sleeper account reactivated in mid-June/2020 after being dormant for 6 months (1,206 total edits since registering 8/8/2014)

Oddly, all of these users seems to have an acquaintance with WP policies and this article’s history that goes well beyond what one would expect from greenhorn editors. Just sounding the warning that if there is any obstruction from these users going forward, the next step will be a user conduct RfC. I don’t know if the issues we’re having here are due to the inexperience of these editors with WP P&Ps or if it goes beyond that, but it’s clear that there’s no point going through the motions of consensus building until this issue is resolved. Since this is a user conduct issue rather than a editorial issue, there is no point in engaging in further discussion about it on this talk page, but it is important that other editors be made aware of the background details and the implications. Rhode Island Red (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't know any better, it would be possible to read your statement as some sort of compliment because apparently it's unusual for a "greenhorn editor" like me to have an understanding of WP policies. Here's my secret to figuring it out so well: I know how to read and google. And given the global crisis, I have a little time on my hands. Maybe you do too?!Writethisway (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@RhodeIslandRed - Your conspiracy theories hardly deserve my time or response. And I know how argumentative you can be: we’ve tangled on this page over the years. But to correct the record, I want to make it clear that you’re the one that recently jumpstarted this page after years of minor activity to re-start the same debate you lost before.

It is beyond curious to me that you're the most dominant editor of this page (39% authorship), yet you’re trying to call me out for making a couple of recent edits—edits that were only intended to preserve the status quo and follow the prior RfC process. You've made 543 edits to the page, while I've made 4.

It seems that your M.O. is to attempt to intimidate, criticize, and dismiss anybody who has a difference of opinion with you. You did that to me years ago when I originally founded this page, and you’re trying to do it again. Anybody who looks at this situation will see your actions appear very close to page ownership WP:OWNERSHIP. Pistongrinder (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

No one advanced a conspiracy theory and your response (accusation of WP:OWN) is bizarre to say the least, given that it was I who suggested getting more experienced editors involved to resolve the dispute in an RfC. However, the consensus building process is only effective when the people involved have enough experience to understand WP policies and keep their biases in check. That doesn’t seem to be the case here. The counterarguments advanced so far (e.g., MLM doesn’t have a legal definition, etc.) are tendentious to say the least. No need to get up in arms about the suggestion to invite a broader group of experienced editors to weigh in; that’s how WP is supposed to function.

The current dispute boils down to 2 very simple points: (1) it is established that the company is an MLM according to multiple WP:RS and as recognized by a broad consensus of editors, and this detail has been included in the body text of the article for roughly 7 years; (2) as such, why would it be undue to include that simple and notable descriptor in the lead, the same way that is in articles on every other MLM? All the complaining and gnashing of teeth over this is completely unnecessary and a distraction since it’s a very simple editorial question at hand. No need for histrionics, just well thought out feedback from unbiased editors who understand WP P&Ps. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It is fascinating to watch how quickly you change tactics. After you get shutdown on the substance of the debate, you resort to ad hominem attacks, calling people “sleeper accounts.” Just as quickly, when those you call “sleeper accounts” point out how transparently biased you are on this subject (543 edits to 4!), you turn again to your tired arguments on the merits of this issue. It gives one whiplash. How can you seriously accuse others of “gnashing of teeth” and “histrionics” when your editing and talk history reveals a near obsession on the person and company? You don’t get to own this page and accuse others of improprieties when they push back on you.Jurisdicta (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Yet another comment that avoids confronting the simple fundamental editorial question posed above. Yes histrionics indeed; and not constructive. The accounts were referred to as sleepers because that is what they are by WP definition, and feigned indignation doesn't change that fact. Again, just focus on the editorial issue please. Want to get all the sleepers positions on record before this moves to RfC. Rhode Island Red (talk)

Categories: