Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:49, 21 December 2006

The following Misplaced Pages contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Sbinfo (talk · contribs) / Barrett, Stephen Barrett, Stephen

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Inc. it is

Shot

(1) Here it is, NCAHF, Inc. right now, 19 Dec 2006 (UTC), second paragraph of the NCAHF membership/donations solicitation.

(3) NCAHF is still representing itself as NCAHF, Inc. and soliciting funds from MA, right now, as such as in (1) above. Even if it shifted to a personal dba or whatever, that status change would be notable and perhaps complex, but "not a good, reassuring thing"

Again, legality is not the only notability issue. Exact "current status" unknown/known is not required, simply most recently / last known dated status reports, or portion thereof (e.g. not currently officially listed/registered in MA), is fine, there is always a lag (Wiki Yearbook anybody?). You don't have to know everything to state the notable facts that you do have, and they can speak for themselves. Any others?--I'clast 07:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Humour me, but since you are being very pedantic, why doesn't the "NCAHF Inc" ask it's donators and members to write checks out to "NCAHF" with no Inc? And why is it that in all the website, this is the only location that the "Inc" is still in. You are drawing a long bow here. Remember WP:OR. I must admit, I do like how you and Ilena (et.al) are wanting, nay, needing to find some bizarre little fault in an organisation that is plainly not incorporated, and not playing your little game of "find the conspiracy". HOWEVER, in saying all that, I don't object to it appearing but I find it very, very, very odd that it is regarded as notable, particularly in the light that some users (Ilena etc) have written that they regard this as illegal and hence notable. So if it isn't illegal, does that make it not notable? Anyway, time to move on. Shot info 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Inc: NCAHF doesn't seem to use Inc in its pre2003 newsletters either, assuming no alterations. Googling 1999-2006 "Inc" is about 100x less common than w/o Inc. and a temporary drop in half for Inc in 2004 & 2005 (uh-oh, BK whopper & fries?). More Inc: bottom para,CredentialWatch 2006, Google("national council against health fraud inc")=766. The change of this organization from Inc to non-Inc. would indicate some change of interest to prospective contacts. There is nothing plain here, it's dealing with shadows, all we can do is report the WP:V facts we can find. NCAHF & associates seem to maintain the mystery(s). Illegal would be only one of several reasons for notable. If NCAHF has truly changed from Inc to non-Inc, the article's history should reflect that, but that is OR right now. Basically: NCAHF literature sometimes says it's Inc (which *any* use may be more important to the states than the non-uses); IRS forms (unsigned by NCAHF officer) say Inc, CA says it's Inc, suspended; but it almost always used/promoted the inc'less acronym (like my utility company).--I'clast 14:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Summarizing: Lots and lots of original research trying to demonstrate notability. Ilena continues to push her pov. We have no concensus.

I think this research is interesting and worth ensuring that it's available for editors to read. However it doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, nor should it be the sole supporting reason for publishing something about it in the encyclopedia itself. --Ronz 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronz, we have WP:OR to push a POV provided by Ilena, and the article ignores WP:N again to advance Ilena's POV. Of course under protest it has been watered down such that it is not so obvious that it is PUSHPOV, instead there is a piece of trivia (unmarked) to allow the decision to be "left up to the reader" which is a admission of the failure to follow WP:N. I vote that we remove the section altogether given that a consensus cannot be reached per the normal wiki guidelines. Shot info 22:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the credit ... but the suspension of NCAHF and the proof that it is NOT a legal Massachusetts Corporation is not my POV ... they are facts, albeit ones that you and others would prefer to hide. Ilena 22:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, your failure to understand wiki and it's purposes is documented on your talk page. The discussion isn't the "fact" is their notability. There is no argument about "hiding" or whatever this is YOUR POV creeping into the picture and frankly your failure to engage in fruitful wikiediting isn't helping to convince me that this exercise is nothing more than PUSHPOV. Now, lets vote. Shot info 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. I couldn't disagree more. Please and thank you. Ilena 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Guys, would you care to briefly articulate exactly what phrase(s) you consider OR and/or POV and why, please.--I'clast 00:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that would be ever so useful. Thank you. Ilena 00:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So far it has been pointed out many, many, many times and then when it all comes to a conclusion, you ask....again. The original reason the original words by Ilena was put in there was to PUSHPOV and it was blatant OR. So after many, many, many, many, many, many, many words in the talk page later, it has been boiled down to proving a negative (ie/ we can prove what it is not) while engaging in OR by saying "It claims to be Inc but it isn't registered"... Then the whole question of N comes into play. Levine says it is N because "It claims to be Inc. but it isn't registered and if I was paying I would like to know this" (my paraphrase) so we have Levine saying it is N based on OR. So since it is OR why is it still notable. In particular when you remove the OR (the whole proving a negative bit about MA registration) it just becomes a dot trivia point about CA registration. Of course Ilena is PUSHPOV her POV to support her allegations of "illegal" activity which calls into the very question of why this now trivial point is notable. Now all this has been discussed over and over again and the reason it stands is because yourself, Levine and Ilena all have various reasons to include it. Ilena's is obvious POV, Levine is derived from OR and that only leaves yourself. And from the other three editors questioning this, it appears that you position is that it is notable. Why? Shot info 01:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have screwed up the 2nd archive, can somebody have a look? Shot info 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shot info, my dear. With all due respect, it appears you are uneducated in State requirements for non-profits and suspended non-profits. If you understood this, you would fully understand what is so notable about NCAHF who claims to be a 'watchdog' and goes campaigns for: 'Accountability for those who violate consumer laws. " Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Please and thank you. Ilena 01:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we have evidence of WP:OR. I have previously pointed out that the IRS does not require an "organisation" to be a corporation to qualify for non-profit status. As for being uneducated, well, I'm not the one with the repeated warnings for uncivilty on my talk page.Shot info 04:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Shot, I wanted to give you the opportunity to clarify your positions on specific phrases after all the hub bub, so I could better address them. Frankly, matching your comments to specific policies is unclear if not confusing. Also it helps if you use difs e.g. "original words by Ilena", presumably her first ever edit on NCAHF (7 July 06). By the way, I forgot to thank you for this reply, with 4 enumerated points, I felt is was clear and easier to address.--I'clast 02:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, Shot Info, I believe you are putting words in my mouth and creating what is known as a "Strawman Argument"... where one creates an advesary which they can make an argument against. My reason for stating that this information is notable is that it concerns the corporate status of this entity. If it were in good standing with the state where it files taxes, then it wouldn't be notable. But as it isn't in good standing with California - it is suspended and has been for quite some time - this information is notable. No original research. Anyone can check the California Business Portal in one click and now we can check their IRS tax filings. Our job at Misplaced Pages is to collect information which can be verified and be presented by the editor following NPOV. Now then, for us to say that they are operating illegally WOULD constitute a WP:OR violation as we have not seen a reliable source (as of yet) stating this. However, to state that their license is currently suspended is verifiable from the highly reliable state business portal. To state that NCAHF operates out of Massachusetts can also be verified by checking their own website. Now then, just because they operate out of Mass. doesn't mean that they still aren't a California corporation. You can register your corp. in any state and not have an office there, but come tax time, you have to file with the state you are registered in. That is why - I would imagine - NCAHF files in CA yet has their office in Mass. Of course you won't find them in the Mass. corp database and stating that they aren't in the Mass. database is NOT notable.

To summarize: That they have a suspended business license in the state which they file taxes IS notable. That they operate out of Massachusetts IS notable. That they don't have a business license in Mass. is NOT notable. That they are operating illegally DOES constitute Original Research at this point as we don't have a verifiable saying just that. It isn't enough to have two facts which seem to point to this... we need it outright stated by a reliable source that NCAHF is operating illegal by collecting donations while their business license is suspended. All information - and especially one which claims an entity or person is acting outside the law - needs to be verified.

I hope this makes you clear about my current position on this. And know that I am not stubborn and I am always willing to change my mind. Just present the verifiable information and we'll see. Levine2112 02:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

A public apology: the quote I was reviewing "If I were making a donation for $100 to NCAHF (in MA), I would be very much interested that it is duly registered" is actually from I'clast rather than from Levine. Sorry about this, I misread the signature when making my paraphase. Shot info 04:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Levine, I slightly differ on MA because it is content rather than the subject or topic, where WP:N is not applied for this kind of notability (usefuless). See below Policies...--I'clast 07:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So, lets do this again

1. Is the organistion a corporation....yes/no/unknown?

2. Is this notable...yes/no

3. Is the organisation a corporation in CA....yes/no/unknown?

4. Is this notable...yes/no

5. Is the organisation a non-profit organisation for the purposes of being able to call itself non-profit...yes/no/unknown?

6. Is this notable...yes/no

7. Is the organisation acutally resident in MA or is this their postal address...yes/no/unknown?

8. Is this notable...yes/no

9. Is the name of an organisation on a tax return more important than the EmpID# in area D of the return to the IRS...yes/no/unknown?

10. Is this notable...yes/no

So far from reading the above it appears that we have Levine agreeing that the current information is too much. So it can be pruned. Which will turn it into a dot point. And again it needs to be asked, is a single short sentence about incorporation status in CA ... notable.....without resorting to POV and OR. The more we discuss this, the more it seems like WP:ILIKEIT. Shot info 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I had hoped that you would enumerate, briefly explain *your* current best thinking & policy points since you (along with Ronz) asserted so many. This list asks questions in forms that may not correspond to the verifiable facts that we do have and is hence not so useful.--I'clast 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Because when you remove the OR and the POV you end up with a trivial point. Now admittably this is my POV but why I keep harping on it is that it is my opinion (and seemingly in agreement with Ronz and Arthur, but I will let them answer for themselves) this "fact" deserves to be deleted because of the non-triviality issues discussed in WP:N. I don't disagree with the fact, or even some of the conclusion(s) drawn from them. BUT we are in wikipedia here. We wikilawyer for a reason... Shot info 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

O and while discussing notability, is this dot point notable to an english reader resident in Canada, or the UK or for that matter anywhere around the globe? Wiki is just not for US residents. Shot info 05:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Policies when you RTFM

I, along with other editors here, have frequently used "notable" in more of a colloquial sense covered by other policies rather than WP:N; e.g. (from NPOV)

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF, and the topic, Incorporation status (or originally,About the organization) be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content

WP:OR is frequently (mis)quoted on source based research here,

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Misplaced Pages should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

I'm not wikilawyering, I'm editing an encyclopedia, I've seen real corporate and academic frauds, and I've avoided a number of burns by such "pedantic" caution. I hope others will appreciate the effort, I've written bare facts to be encyclopedic.--I'clast 06:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:N asks that the subject, NCAHF,... be objectively notable, noted by multiple sources, but not content

Your POV from your OR.

Should readers be interested in a corp that has effectively left a state with legal troubles hanging on it ..... your money...on?

Your POV from your OR.

...An unincorporated company/association...its members by potentially being liable. all the members, collectively, or any one... Members of unincorporated associations may also be liable for any civil wrongs that they participate in, authorize or even simply assent to by vote or otherwise.. eeuuuu.

Again, your POV from your OR.

Do we have all the gods-eye answers? No. Do we have to have them? No....facts, each one counts,...informed questions...informed decisions. So when someone asks you to be "members" of an unknown or unincorporated association (company, uninc corp), be careful there pardner.

Still your POV from your OR. So how much of your OR do you have to write to claim that you are not engaging in sythesis....or (god forbid) POVPUSH?

So in other word WP:ILIKEIT...check:

Admitably the original intent of drawing readers to the conculsion that the organisation is acting neferously has being removed but only replaced with something more subtle. "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C."

Please don't split my comments, it makes them hard to read. I've extracted my text and reformatted yours.

Now, I've tried to conversationally illustrate some of the encyclopedic interest, prudent caution, potential uses, and all I get is a face full of "POV and OR" on bare facts. Hear this. There is strictly no SYNTHESIS in the content, so pls quit trying to blast me/us with OR, POVPUSH, ILIKEIT. Again, pls read WP:NPOV, Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.

Bottom line: WP:V, WP:RS applies to the two content sentences; WP:N (WP:NOTE) may apply to the whole subtopic. WP:OR does not apply to source based research. Germane, bare facts & no synthesis. I don't think this can be more clear. If you don't like Wiki policies, you can try to rewrite them. But not the facts.--I'clast 09:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I've made myself perfectly clear on this. I think it's OR. I'd like a source to back all the interpretation of facts. I think any other editor could and should ask for the same. --Ronz 16:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

In case you missed it above, I've quoted the relevant Wiki policy, WP:OR, on this: ...collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. There is *no basis* for claiming OR here in the Incorporation Status section. There is no interpretation presented, just the bare facts collected from relevant government sources, any interpretations are from the readers.--I'clast 19:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piece by piece

Let's look at this one sentence/clause at a time and please point out and explain in detail how a WP:OR and/or WP:NPOV violation is being committed:

• NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts.

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not verifiable, NCAHF "Inc" does not exist. This is OR in making the assumption that the only page in the entire website is the sole source of this claim. The balance of the information suggests that this is incorrect. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF Inc does exist. Just look at the reference on this statement. The organization which one would mail their membership dues to is: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. It says this right on the page. How is this OR? I'm sure they are offically National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., but for brevity they just call themselves NCAHF. They used the Inc. since 1977 when they first filed for a business licence in CA, according to that business portal search. Would this sentence be fine to you if we just dropped the "Inc."? Please clarify. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

So if they exist, which state are they incorporated in? We know that they aren't in two. So is that notable? Or is it OR to say "They are in MA, but aren't a corporation in MA"? Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

According tro that tax record (which I will search for in this talk page's archive) they are still filing in CA. Levine2112 23:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the link to the 2004 tax filing which shows them operating out of MA but still filing in CA. Levine2112 23:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003,

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation.

Verifiable fact. No opinion. Levine2112 19:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is verifiable, but it is also verifiable that it may not be registered in 48 other states. So this is not notable. It is OR to include point 1 and point 3. Shot info 22:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

But Mass. is where their office is. Hence, "not natively registered". However, I am unsure whether this is notable. Tons of corporations aren't natively incorporated. It is possible that while their office is in Mass., they are still (or wish to be still) incorporated in California. There's no problem with doing that. That's completely legal, unless nonprofits have different rules. Levine2112 23:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it is not notable and have been laboring this point. Shot info 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this will clear things up. To me, everything above is verifiable and doesn't present any opinion other than the barebone facts, but I would love to hear what others think specificaly. Levine2112 19:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. NCAHF Membership Application
2. Secretary of State (California). Corporations.California Business Portal current as of "DEC 15, 2006".
3. Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division. Corporate DatabaseThe Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Boston, MA. accessed 19 Dec 2006.

WP:BLP

This policy states we may not use primary sources for potentially (thank you, Ilena) defamatory information if there no reliable secondary sources for the information. If it applies to groups and associations, as noted in a recent Arbcom case, this would require that the incorporation status section be removed. This is still a close matter. I don't see OR or NPOV violations, but the WP:BLP issue may require removal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome, Arthur. The State is the ultimate source of the legality or non legality of a corporation. Frankly, with all due respect, all of this blah blah about a verifiable fact about a suspended operation is a bit pathetic. Thank you. Ilena 15:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty basic. We are discussing corporate status, legally a fictional being, a creature of state, *not* a living person. Hence not a Biography of a Living Person, no BLP.--I'clast 19:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't mean to be picky, but unfortunately the US Supreme Court has defined a corporation as a "legal person", entitled to civil rights and permitted to sue for defamation. However, I don't understand why a truthful statement about a corporate status could not be stated. A charity has to even be a 501(c)(3)... So if this organization (however it is created) is accepting donations, it has to have some kind of IRS designation and registration with the state. One way to find this out is to ask the organization? There either is or is not some kind of registration.
2. To be defamatory, a statement or presentation must be false. If a statement is not false, it is not defamation. There can be defamation by innuendo, but that has to be very clear cut, and it is rare - that would be where the way something is presented logically results in a false conclusion. If one is using a reliable resource as a reference, and it is truthful, there should be no problem. In an article like this, I would think corporate status may be pertinent -- especially where the entity sues others and the issue of standing has been raised.
3. Public figure - this organization would be considered a public figure. That is, the only way even a false statement could be actionable is if (1) the actor knew the statement was false; or (2) acted with reckless disregard for the truth (eg did no investigation). It is nearly impossible for a public figure to prove defamation, even without the "Internet Decency Act". Jance 22:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure Wiki's definition of a "living person" is not the same as U.S.C.'s definition of a "legal person"... though I appreciate the out-of-the-box thinking, Jance. But even for argument's sake, Arthur, if were to assume that NCAHF is a "living person", the CA state portal is an extremely reliable secondary source... you must admit. I'm sure their database is kept accurate to a least the week, let alone the 3 going on 4 years it has been since NCAHF license was suspended. Ilena, can you please post the link to that tax record again (or I can search this talk page's archive for it.)? Levine2112 23:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Neverrmind, Ilena. I found the link to that 2004 tax record which shows that they were still filing in CA despite being located in MA. Levine2112 23:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus?

Rather than arguing lets develop the consensus:

1. Deletion
2. Prune down to just CA status
3. Keep
4. Add or increase

So far my reading of the above as Ronz with 1, myself wavering between 1 & 2, Arthur at 2, Levine between 2 and 3, I'cast at 3 and Ilena at 4. Am I correct with my readings? Shot info 22:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If I can express an opinion... I "vote" 2. I do not think it would be appropriate to leave the MA statement in there, without more information. That is improper innuendo. Also, if you keep #2, it might be a good idea to check the IRS, too.Jance 23:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty accurate in terms of my feelings. While their lack of incorporation status in their home state of Mass. is verifiable, I am not convinced that this is notable. Their CA status however is entirely notable. Since it has been suspended since 2003, it is pretty obvious that this isn't just a clerical error. I know the state gov't is full of red tape, but I'm sure whatever the issue is, NCAHF could have fixed their business license status in 3 going on 4 years. Levine2112 23:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be presumptuous, but can I point out that it appears we have a general consensus approaching 2? It would appear that Levine, Jance, Arthur (Arthur, I don’t want to speak for your though) appear to clearly support this position and I am willing to support it (as I agree that it is notable albeit trivial but other articles have lots of trivia as well). This leaves Ronz, I’clast and Illena to respond. Shot info 23:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That being said, it might be nice to state where they are located... Peabody, Massachusetts... and leave out the "not natively incorporated" bit until someone explains why that is notable. Levine2112 00:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with 2. Ilena 01:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow! we are close to a consensus... if not there already. Lose the Mass. bit and we are there. Sound good? Levine2112 01:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep.Jance 01:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

My position has not changed - I think it should be deleted (why is it back yet again?). I'm going to seek a 3rd party perspective, since I still see the original research as being a problem. However, if Arthur agrees as we're assuming, then I won't remove it because of issues of original research or consensus on those issues. The NPOV issues still exist, but those should be discussed further before taking action. --Ronz 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Dude! We have a consensus here. There was give and take. I changed my mind of a few things. Even Ilena has been generous enough to give a little. There is no Original Research here... this is straight up verifiable facts. And this has been completely NPOVified now. Let's roll with this positive surge of cooperative spirit and let's move on. Again, good work! Levine2112 02:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And I've explained my position. --Ronz 02:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice work everyone! Shot Info, thanks for being the one who presented this solution! Good work all. Levine2112 02:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to be late; I concur with 2. Well done, Shot Info. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jance 03:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! Levine2112 03:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous issues

I'd like to again give everyone the chance to address the issues I brought up before, with a slight update on where I think we stand:

We have no source that shows it's notability (so it should be removed per WP:V and WP:N). I'm not saying the individual facts are not verifiable, only that the notability is unsourced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you show notability? That the info of the license suspension is quoted in someplace other than the CA State Portal? Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The WP:NOTE is simply based on multiple sources for *an article* as an objective measure, discussed previously, not single lines of content and individual facts. Read the policy.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have lots of original research here speculating why it may or may not be notable. This research is the only rationale for supporting the inclusion of the information (so it should be removed per WP:OR). As long as the speculation on this discussion page (and archives) are the only rationale, then it's OR. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it is just one of those things where the notability is completely obvious. Any gross irregularity in the corporate status of a company (especially one that has been that way for 3 going on 4 years) is just plainly notable. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no WP:OR. Ronz continually repeats & misuses WP:OR, dismissing CLEAR, desired source research as WP:OR even when presented the direct quotes requiring no interpretation. A great motivation for the "full facts version" is because the phrasing simply doesn't read very well with natural questions that are being forced to remain unanswered. There are a dozen encyclopedic reasons for this contetn, some editors will igonre them all. It amazes me someone can parade this deletionism so blatantly.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is for documenting what is verifiably known (so the information should be removed per WP:NOT). I think we've addressed this partially. We still have Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox which is really just WP:NPOV below. Also, there's Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have made concerted efforts to present this information in the most neutral way possible. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is most about the whole articles themselves having multipe sources as an objective standard of Notablity. Little "n" notability is actually other policies that include usefulness of content like individual facts (more subjective). To me, the "little n" notability (see above) for content is intrinsic when by conventional business practices, yellow and red (warning) flags fly all around these kind of facts. The two sentences expressed no opinions. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not indecipherable & misleading. Right now the Incorporation section may lead a reader to conclude, or be just plain confused, whether NCAHF is even operational since it has been suspended so long and does not begin to address the natural questions of a reader that we have WP:V facts for (It's corresponding out of Mass. but it is not a Mass corp either.). The original phrasing is not indiscriminate, that's part of *others'*(not my) soapbox.-I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

This information is repeatedly presented within this discussion as criticism of Barrett (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV). The fact that it's currently not presented as criticism doesn't change the past discussion here. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have NPOVified this information. This isn't an article about Barrett nor does this information appear in Barrett's article. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Another blatant distortion alleging policies, again. Previously explained above.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We have no consensus on the information at this time (so it should be removed per WP:NPOV and WP:CONSENSUS). Despite this it has been repeatedly reintroduced. --Ronz 01:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all of our cooperative efforts (finally!) we do in fact have a consensus. See above. Levine2112 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

See also, WP:OWN--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Scratch all I wrote that I just now deleted. If you are talking about the MA status, I think we are in agreement that it should not be included. It is innuendo, without enough information to be anything but innuendo. The CA status is relevant, and consensus was reached, I believe (see above). But Ronz, please, is there any way you can talk in English? Oy vey maria, I am weary of WP:TLA.  ;-) Jance 02:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying. The WP references are there specifically as references to the guidelines and policies in general. --Ronz 02:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, Ownership examples:Events--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, these issues were brought up to the statment "NCAHF's California corporate status was suspended in May, 2003, and its current status is unknown." --Ronz 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronz, personally I think the point is not notable (mainly not due to verifibility or anything like that but just because it's a pointless piece of trivia), however, given that a consensus was reached it should stand and wait for further information or other editors. I guess we have all had a good stab at it and really we have ended up back where we were about a month ago :-) Shot info 05:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

To correct the article's future history, the issues were for "NCAHF, Inc. corresponds with, and solicits for, new members and donations from Massachuesetts. NCAHF's corporate status in California was suspended in May, 2003, and it is not natively registered as a Massachusetts corporation." This original proposal of the Incorporation Status section reads & satisfies user questions much better also. Encyclopedic writing is being dismissed as WP:OR.--I'clast 12:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Articles with connected contributors