Talk:Centerplate

Remove undue weight tag

The idea that one section being devoted to the world-renowned Des Hague scandal is "undue weight" is ridiculous. Promptly remove tag.Brmull (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The "one section" is half the article. It might belong in an article on Hague, but neither Centerplate or its business associates have supported Hague's actions in any way. Edward321 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your own opinion as to whether Centerplate or its venue partners has anything to do with Hague is irrelevant. Centerplate as well as its partners are now a part of the news story. The Chief Executive Officer of a company is the public face of the company, therefore, the scandal surrounding Hague does not reflect "undue weight." I will continue to escalate this and ask for page protection if you continue to let your own biases influence removing other contributors' material. Mac22203 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Mac22203

I have added additional information related to the punishment given by the board to Mr. Hague. I have also added language to make it more clear why the issues raised on the page are relevant to Centerplate and not solely to Mr. Hague. Mac22203 (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Mac22203

I have removed the entire section - it is entirely improper, and a violation of WP:BLP policy to use a Wikipedia article on a company as a coatrack for negative material on an individual. This incident has nothing whatsoever to do with the company's business. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, "AndyTheGrump," that's your opinion and, fortunately, Wikipedia policy does not allow for your opinion to censor factually accurate and relevant information. If you do this again, you will be held accountable by a third party editor or moderator on Wikipedia. I will advocate for you to be banned from making edits to this page as well as request an inquiry into any of your other activities on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy, whether you like it or not, allows controversies surrounding the officials who govern a company to be described on the page. Mac22203 (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Mac22203

Advocate what you like - I am well aware of Wikipedia policy, and well aware that your abuse of this article as a soapbox is liable to result in you being the one blocked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a lawyer, and a damn good one, so your efforts to cite Wikipedia policy in support of your editorial biases and flagrant disregard for the relevant facts surrounding the topic of this wikipedia page are not going to work with me. I am going to push this up the chain and we'll just see what content ultimately remains on the page. You have not engaged in a good faith effort to reach a consensus on this dispute. The CEO of a company is the public figurehead of that company. Any controversy surrounding the CEO, and the company's response to that controversy, is relevant. Additionally, the fact that you have deleted the names of the venue partners of Centerplate shows that your true motive is to censor information, rather than provide a truly unbiased and impartial wikipedia entry. As I said, once the process of dispute resolution has run its course, you will no longer be able to delete my contributions. Mac22203 (talk) 04:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)Mac22203

Note: Mac22203 has now been blocked for edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? The Des Hague scandal has "nothing whatsoever to do with the company's business". I'm all for not making Wikipedia an ideological battleground, but you can't not mention the scandal when 99% of people never heard of Centerplate before the scandal. Brmull (talk) 04:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is true, it is an indication that Centerplate probably doesn't meet our notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In support of Brmull. Fortune article titled "Will a dog-abuse scandal sink stadium caterer Centerplate?" Michael Cornelius (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If this incident needs discussing at all, it should only concern the extent to which the incident has directly affected the business - which clearly wasn't the case with the deleted material. Instead, as Mac22203 had made clear above, the article was being edited in a way directly aimed at encouraging a boycott of venues that used Centerplate: hence the ridiculously-long list of 'Venue Partners' (see Mac22203's original edit adding them [1])- which incidentally, I removed as unencyclopaedic material, rather than for any ulterior motive (I'd not realised why it had been added until Mac22203 made the motivation clear). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The linked article asks, "Will a dog-abuse scandal sink stadium caterer Centerplate?" If it does, which I highly doubt, then it will be worth mentioning more than a single sentence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In support of a section on the Des Hague scandal. Centeplate official statement on its website that includes "As a condition of his continued employment with Centerplate, Mr. Hague will personally donate $100,000.00 USD which will be donated towards the establishment of the Sade Foundation in honor of the dog he mistreated in the elevator ..." and "the company will also contribute a portion of our sales to the Sade Foundation. Additionally, we will open this foundation to all Centerplate employees and the general public who want to support and contribute in the hope that meaningful change can come out of this tragic situation." Michael Cornelius (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

The problem with the section was it was about Hague and not about the company. I had trimmed the section down to a few sentences and it still put undue weight on the subject. The single purpose accounts seem to want to make the majority of the article about the incident and not about the company. Edward321 (talk) 23:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Board of directors

Does anyone else have an opinion on the board of directors listing? It seems unnecessary detail to me, and we don't generally seem to include such lists in articles on businesses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I removed it before I saw this so obviously I agree with you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I had strongly considered removing the board of directors list, but there were bigger issues. We don't do it for bigger companies and none of the members seems to be individually notable, so I see no reason to include them in the article. Edward321 (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a blatantly inaccurate statement. Did you even bother looking up the pages for any of the "bigger companies"? See entries for IBM, Time Warner, etc. At any rate, as a result of the (in my opinion) aggressive editing of the 2 or 3 users immediately above, there is now widespread awareness that the editing process for this page was a total failure. See, for example, the following tweet sent to over 450,000 individuals: https://twitter.com/DanKimRedMango/status/506308734620938240. That's a black eye for those of you who were overly zealous in eliminating factually relevant material from this page. And now the controversy that Centerplate had hoped to avoid by distancing itself from its CEO has only been amplified across social media - and the fact that this page is locked for editing (in part because of content dispute) only reinforces the link between Centerplate and the controversy surrounding its CEO.

A significant majority of the Time Warner and IBM board of directors have their own articles, indicating independent notability. And we don't care what twitterers think. Wikipedia articles are not for their social media games. Join the Wikipedia editing community if you want to influence article content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

But not all of the members of the board have their own articles - and, to my knowledge, that is not a prerequisite on Wikipedia for listing members of a board of directors. I'm guessing that more impartial administrators will agree. As for caring what "twitterers" think, that wasn't my point (I don't really care what they think either). The point is that the zealous editing decisions and lack of an effort to engage in good faith consensus building by yourself, AndyTheGrump, and Edward321 has only reinforced the connection in many people's minds between Centerplate and CEO Desmond Hague. It's rather ironic, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.240.216 (talk) 01:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You confuse refusing to allow this article to be hijacked to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS with not editing in good faith. This was the version before the incident occurred. This was the first edit after it. Of course the article is going to be protected when those types of edit occur. Editors are free to discuss what they think should go in the article. Other editors are free to disagree. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not confused. You and AndyTheGrump made wholesale deletions without trying to use the talk page or to suggest edits for information that other reasonable people might consider relevant for the Centerplate page. Such information, at at minimum, includes the identity of the individual board members; a brief description of the controversy surrounding Centerplate's CEO, the company's response to it, and public reaction to the company's response (e.g. the change.org petition); and a list of the company's vending partners. Such wholesale deletion of reasonable, factual, and relevant information shows that neither you nor AndyTheGrump were acting in good faith. As a result, Wikipedia is now being lampooned across social media for it's failure to provide a fair, unbiased editing process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.240.216 (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove what? Check out the Twitter page above or the dozens of pages on Facebook - all have lampooned how you all have handled this page. Again, its ironic, because it's only reinforced the connection between Centerplate and Desmond Hague. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.240.216 (talk) 02:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Twitter and Facebook are not valid sources in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 September 2014

Remove venue partners reference 6 . Page has apparently been cleansed by Centerplate of all content that could point protesters or petitioners to their clients. Page is now almost devoid of any relevant information about the company. Michael Cornelius (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC) Michael Cornelius (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

 Not done You need to gain consensus for any changes you wish to make. Start a discussion about the changes you think should be made and when you have consensus reask for the the change to be made. GB fan 22:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In effort to reach consensus, I support the effort of Michael Cornelius to list vendors. Regardless of what such a list might be used for, identifying the vending partners of a $9 billion corporation is common sense and reflects normal business information that might be found in any business reference guide, prospectus, etc. Additionally, re-adding the information regarding the identities of board members is in keeping with Wikipedia articles about other corporations and reflects the normal type of information that might be found in a business guide or prospectus.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business guide or prospectus. I checked five other Wikipedia company articles - none of them listed the board of directors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I could point to other examples where board members are listed (as I did above) - so that's not going to get us anywhere. The names of members of the board is a type of factual, reference information - that's the reason it appears in business guides or a prospectus (similar to a company's headquarters, CEO, annual earnings, etc.). So, given that it's objective, factual, and a type of reference information, its perfectly suitable for inclusion on the page. But it's clear from your "tone" that you're not interested in finding a consensus and this will ultimately need to proceed to the next level of dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.240.216 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You might have at least a smidgen more credibility if you would sign your posts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to take this to dispute resolution feel free to do so - but first I suggest that you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This is not a business guide or prospectus. And nor is it a platform for the promotion of campaigns about cruelty to animals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cornelius comes here after 7 years in the wilderness, and the IP comes out of nowhere. Good reasons to keep the page locked and to not make the demanded update. Come to think of it, that other editor Brmil or some such also demanded a change. Oddly similar wording, yes? That, along with the bogus accusation that employees of the company are "cleansing" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what or who you're referencing. As for what Wikipedia "is" and "is not" - providing factual, relevant, unbiased information, regardless of whether you like or don't like what the information might be used for, is in keeping with Wikipedia's mission. Much of the information AndyTheGrump and NeilN deleted could have been rewritten in an way that was unbiased and kept the focus on Centerpate, the topic of the page. As for signing my posts, it's my understanding that Wikipedia policy does not require that for me to participate in a talk page or suggest edits. But I'll consider registering for an account if I (or others) decide to take this to dispute resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.240.216 (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Prove that the board of directors is "relevant" information. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow - look at Wikipedia's own definition! "A board of directors is a body of elected or appointed members who jointly oversee the activities of a company or organization." It's the governing board of a company responsible for numerous business, fiscal, and personnel decisions - how is that not relevant information? Again, its clear that many of you care more about what the information might be used for (e.g., contacting board members to complain about its CEO) rather than the relevance and objective nature of the information itself.