Talk:Goldline International

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's expand this article[edit]

This article was created with Good intentions; let's expand it. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it was created with an effort to prove notability instead of creating encyclopedic prose. It needs secondary coverage. I assume the company is noteworthy enough so hopefully some coverage is available so there is something to fill out the body besides the assertion that it is OK. Do you have links to the interviews? Cptnono (talk) 03:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a draft article written by someone with an apparent COI conflict on this company, before. See User:Gold1933/Goldline . 70.29.208.10 (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a ton of stuff, most of which comes from the company themselves, and thus may need further editing for NPOV. Disclaimer: I consult for a PR firm that works with the company, thus I myself do not have a NPOV. As such, I welcome further editing from neutral sources. I've tried to back up all the stuff I've added with third-party sources, but sometimes that's been difficult, so please add more wherever possible. I've also added a coi template to make sure people know what's going on. Thanks! --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Notability probably exists. Here is a breakdown of the sources I have seen so far:

  • An AP peice with a trivial mention here and duplicated elsewhere
  • A whole bunch on the Glenn beck partnership (people have been trying to be upset about this recently even though it isn't the conspriacy theory some are saying)
  • Press releases. Pprimary sources or sources affiliated with the subject are generally not sufficient to establish notability. They can also be unduely self serving at times.
  • Solicited news coverage on Fox. (will need to watch out for puffery)

More is needed.Cptnono (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Also, properly formated inline citations are required. Cptnono (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Outside of being advertised on Glenn Beck's radio show and being one of his sponsors, I fail to see how this company qualifies as notable. It's not like Carbonite or Lifelock, where several of the major conservative talk show hosts (Rush, Hannity, Huckabee) all endorse the same product. Quidam65 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

I don't even know where to begin with Template:Infobox company. Who are they owned by now? Looks like Thomas Cook sold them in the '91. Their "about us" page is lacking in standard content.

Copyright?[edit]

Is the page "Notable Corporate History" section a copyright violation with so much being copy and pasted from here? (oops, last edit was not meant to be marked "minor")Cptnono (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) Legal name is used in the lead but not normally included in the title.Cptnono (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goldline International, Inc. to Goldline International
  • Support much better article name. 70.29.208.10 (talk) 03:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree completely and regret my error in naming this article. ProfessorPaul (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy mistake to make so don't worry about it. I only knew it because I happened to be looking at the naming convention the other day. This isn't a controversial move but I am under the impression that the proposal template thingy is needed to get the histories moved over.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ...though that article name specifically was A7'd this last summer, there are very rarely objected to completely new articles taking those places if vastly improved form the previous. Actually, I can see that being a subconcious reason for this article name... No harm done and all in good faith, and this is far above anything A7 and balanced out on G11 and I'd be shocked it this was put up for deletion again. I just cleaned it up-- even I admit there's plenty of possible expansion that should probably include why the company name is more circulated as of late (general notes on paid spokespersons, related controversy, and mockery in pop culture comedy)... if there would be any lingering notability questions, this would quell it. That a relatively quiet mid-level firm would spin into this over the past year is certainly relevant and rather unique (if not incredibly odd) US corporate story. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"The Rewrite"[edit]

imo, the version written originally had a better scope and sounded less like an advert. The corporate rubbish was re-inserted into "History", and without any prejudice I removed it all... again. Notable in company history as they company tells you is important is not what gets included in an article. Anything that wasn't related to the corporation on a macro level (what this article is) is gone. Again. Hopefully to not be seen again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's re-cleansed but feels really empty now. Despite the good number of references, it's making my notability trouble sensor start to beep slowly... the biggest "claim to fame" being the rate at which the company is growing (as is sourced), from how I read it. It's just a pamphlet past that... needs more content, not reformatting. Content without the weaseling and peacock terms, at least. Large fundamental conflict-- is this for an "investing group" or a fancy coin shop? The rewrite looked to be aimed entirely to the later. Even if it is a fancy coin shop, without it being talked about in the same professional tone of any other corporate article then it doesn't have anywhere specifically to grow. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on this, but I don't understand why the removal of the politico.com reference. Surely that's a verifiable third-party source? --Rodneyorpheus (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that it's not verifiable, but it's almost like the source is in an alternate reality where three odd synergies of typically unrelated matters in business all mash together into a quazi-controversial... something. If that section get worked back in with far greater mention than why that info was eventually removed I have no problem listing a politics-based source for a matter of politics, but for now this is still 100% a corporate article not covering "that" aspect. It pains me to say this since it's nearly begging for issues of a dozen types, but I'm not sure how far notability might go for this article unless it gets looked at in this angle. As I've seen unverified media mockery continue and the quazi-moral corporate internet cruft go on, the more of a mud pile it is. Unfortunately, there's an actual company under all of 'that', which even I'd basically forgotten about until I saw this on NPP when created. It's unclear to me where one ends and the other begins as a professional company stated and a website akin to most spam links to compare it with. It's downright confusing. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Hold on"[edit]

I very respectfully disagree with the contention that this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements; I have communicated with the Wiki Editor who placed the "Speedy Deletion" tag and told him that (addressing his specific concern) there are several talk radio show personalities who used Goldline as a sponsor, including: Glenn Beck, Monica Crowley, Mike Huckabee, Laura Ingraham, Lars Larson, Mark Levin, and Fred Thompson. I found this on a link at the Goldline webpage [[1]]. That's a total of 7 nationally syndicated radio talk shows. In my humble opinion, that is notable.

Please accept this answer knowing that I have good intentions; Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DEFINITELY Notable![edit]

"Hold on" Tag gone--once a Member of Congress criticizes you, you are notable. Take care. ProfessorPaul (talk) 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud Discovery Institution[edit]

User:Pluxigoop added a report by the Fraud Discovery Institution. This is not a reliable source which is defined as mainstream, published and known for fact checking. This firm is run by Barry Minkow, a convicted felon (for fraud) and, now, pastor. You would need to find a reliable source (again, mainstream, published, known for fact checking) that reported on this "report". Also, youtube is not a reliable source either. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 00:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Liquid asset?[edit]

In the Good Morning America interview [2] at the 5:15 minute mark, Carter states this about purchasing gold:

What we instruct individuals in our risk disclosure, which is very important, is that one, this needs to be a liquid investment....

I used that quote as verification of the article's statement:

He characterized gold as a liquid asset....

But Carter then goes on to explain that you need to hold on to the purchase for 3 - 10 years -- the very definition of a non-liquid asset. A liquid asset is one that can "sold ... with minimum loss of value."[3] Should we just mark this up as a misstatement and remove this sentence? Or was he saying something about the nature of collectible coins -- that they can always be sold easily even though often at a significant loss? Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I looked at their risk disclosure statement[4] and it states:

LIQUIDITY:

Of the products that we buy and sell, bullion and bullion coins are generally more liquid than semi-numismatic coins, and semi-numismatic coins are more liquid than numismatic/rare coins.

This appears to support Carter's statement that they characterize Goldline purchases as a liquid asset. <scratch head> Apparently, they are defining it only in the ease of selling (vs. a house) and not considering the preservation of value (such as a CD). ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of controversy from lead[edit]

Pluxigoop (talk · contribs) removed from the lead:

The company sponsors many conservative radio talk shows and has been criticized for its sales tactics, charges the company denies.

with the edit summary:

Deleted reference of company sponsors - this is a redundant and political orientated statement that is better detailed later in the entry and should not be placed in the company definition section.

The article's lead is not the "company definition" section -- but a summary of the article. From WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article ... including any notable controversies.[emphasis added]

By definition, the lead is redundant to the article. This is both a political and, now, a legal issue. Either way, they need to be in the summary lead. And not all criticisms are coming from a politician -- news outlets and Consumer Reports have done reports. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using Goldline's self-description[edit]

Pluxigoop (talk · contribs) added in Goldline's description of its functions as a cut and paste from their website. There are two problems with this:

  1. We can't cut and paste -- that is a copyright violation
  1. We are writing an encyclopedia. The lead needs to clearly summarize the functions of the business from the text article and not just what the promotional material of the company says it does. For instance, "full range of products" is soapy and does not belong here.

That said, the lead is deficient in that it is vague and doesn't reflect the current state of the article text. Therefore, I will work on doing this -- thanks for pointing this out! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Price Guarantee Program verbiage[edit]

Pluxigoop (talk · contribs), basically, cut and pasted (a WP:COPYVIO) the legalize from Goldline's Account and Storage Agreement, in order to "bring them more in-line with the referenced material." I reverted arguing that the art of writing an encyclopedia is the skill to paraphrase into a succinct form and not to replicate the legal fine print of a company's contract.

Please discuss here which parts of the original version doesn't accurately (sans legalize) reflect the text for general readers vs. potentional buyers who should be reading the source? For instance, I wrote:

if the price of selected coins (not bullion) declines within two weeks,

Pluxigoop replaced with the cut and paste:

on certain qualifying full-priced purchases of selected coins (semi-numismatic and numismatic coins) – if Goldline’s selling price (also known as the ‘ask’ price) for the selected coins is reduced by Goldline within 14 calendar days of the purchase date

Doesn't my version sufficiently encapsulate Goldline's legalize? Again, my version:

the buyer may request the difference be used to purchase coins of the same type (not a refund).

Plux's:

The customer can request in writing from Goldline that their purchase of these selected coins be re-priced at the lower price, but the customer can only request this once during this 14 day period. The customer will receive the ask price that is in effect at this time, and the amount of the difference between their original ask price and the new ask price; will be applied toward the purchase of additional coins of the same type, but not given as direct cash refund.

I will argue that my version is readable and the latter is less so and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Secondly, Pluxi removed the examples clarifying what Goldline's program doesn't guarantee -- the lowest price during that two weeks. It's a one-shot crap shoot -- if the price decreases further, then no refund. If the price increases from its nadir during that two week period and the buyer elects after the nadir, then the higher amount is used. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing Wiener as a liberal[edit]

Some editors have reverted Wiener's characterization as a liberal. I'd like to know why they don't revert the five instances of the use of conservative. Characterizing critics and proponents is an appropriate element of writing articles in a neutral tone. "Liberal" and "conservative" are neutral descriptions (vs., say, "far left" or "far right"). Wiener is an unabashed liberal. There is nothing wrong about characterizing someone as a liberal just as there is nothing wrong with the word "conservative". Nor is it irrelevant -- most importantly, it is not irrelevant to the sources. Politico described Wiener as "a liberal who represents New York City" when writing about his Goldline report. Politico raised the question of whether his report was politically motivated. If you think it is irrelevant that Wiener is a liberal, then you should write to Politico and complain. However, Wikipedia depends upon attribution and verification. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that there is nothing wrong with characterizing Rep. Weiner as a liberal. However, one should recognize that where this attribution is made makes a difference. Since there are many references to Weiner, there are many places where this attribution can be made. I have moved the attribution "liberal" to the second (rather than the first) use of Weiner's name in the opening sentence of this "Investigations and Lawsuits" section. This removes the appearance that the attribution "liberal" is intended pejoratively.Jedishive (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting Glenn Beck[edit]

Other than the sponsorship/advertising relationship between Goldline and several other political commentators, why is it at all relevant to use quotes from Glenn Beck in describing the company, as well as his responses to investigations and lawsuits filed against the company?

Is he an official spokesperson for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.73.98 (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources felt it was relevant. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albarian -- founding partner?[edit]

According to Goldline's website, Albarian was a founding partner of A-Mark Precious Metals Inc. However, A-Mark Precious Metals Inc. was founded in 1965 by the well known Steven C. Markoff. If Albarian was a founding partner along with Markoff, then he would have been one year old. I think that such an extraordinary claim should be supported by a better source then the website's marketing material. According to the source outlining the A-Mark's history, Albarian is described as a company director and not a founding partner. I argue that we defer to the latter source. However, if Pluxigoop (talk · contribs) prefer's Goldline lesser source, then we could muddy the waters by saying something like:

Mark Albarian, an A-Mark company director (according to Goldline's website, he was a founding partner when it was founded in 1965)

However, I don't believe the article is improved. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 01:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a senior experienced editor review of this article[edit]

When I last read this article several months ago, it had been a more simple, concise and useful article about a mid-sized company who sells gold and collectible gold coins and who had a few minor legal issues based on a very few customer complaints.

Now this article reads with what seems to me is an emphasis that this company is cheating all it’s customers out of a lot of money and it now seems to me that the core of the article is now focused on a liberal democrat looking to highlight some conservative conspiracy with a ‘congressional investigation’ that he is using put his name in the news to help his future run for NYC mayor. The ‘major’ lawsuits mentioned in the article are fairly minor customer complaints involving very small sums of money that every mid-sized company has to deal with, no matter how good their BBB rating is.

It seems to me, that this is now an article with several paragraphs put together of some factual and referenced materials, but strung together to imply a negative bias of the company. This a mid-size company, with tens of thousands of customers, a BBB A+ rating and a few customer complaints, and it seems to me that it is not, worthy of such a lengthy Wikipedia article.

Also, it seems to me, that the article has become a little unorganized, repetitive, and is hard to read with a mishmash of relevant and non-relevant paragraphs organized in such a way that it seems to me to create the implication that this is a dishonest company taking advantage of its customers. If that was really the case, it’s customers would have fled long ago. After spending a hour reviewing all the editing changes, it seems to me that several of the edits cite negative examples, when they could just as easily cite a positive example, or better yet both (although it would get a little wordy).

In addition, some of the references are personal blogs, which seem questionable as to the timing of the information presented - especially since they sometimes have an editor making comments on the said referenced blog. The information from said reference is later used (in my humble opinion) to change the summary to one implying wrong doing instead of a neutral tone.

The below quoted opening summaries from the most resent changes seem to me a very clear example of the negative bias found through out the article in certain edits. The original opening summary was concise, easy to read and a reasonable summary of the article in its most basic form. The revised version below it, implies the company is connected to a gold bubble, drug trafficking and money laundering. Also, how is it relevant and summary worthy that the three key executives from Goldline are connected to another company?

Original Summary (Only Paragraph):

Goldline International, Inc. is a retail seller of gold and silver coins, and precious metals for investors and collectors.[1] Founded in 1960 as Deak Investor Services in New York and later moved to California in 1991. The company advertises on several television channels and also sponsors some of the more popular conservative radio talk shows. Goldline takes orders over the phone, and for smaller purchase amounts via their Yahoo Store.[2] The company has been criticized for some aspect of its sales tactics, charges the company denies.

Current Summary (First Paragraph):

Goldline International, Inc. is a retail seller of gold and silver coins, and precious metals for investors and collectors.[1] While the company traces its formation to a Deak & Co. subsidiary created in 1960, a firm that at the height of the gold bubble in the late 1970s was the largest storefront gold retailer and later went into bankruptcy in the 1980s after allegations arose of money laundering for drug traffickers, the current incarnation of selling gold by phone began in 1992 at A-Mark Precious Metals where three of the key executives once worked.

I have placed this observation and comments in this discussion of the article, before making any edits - since one or more editors may disagree with my observations and comments.

I wanted to raise this issue so others can comment, and I can find out if I am completely wrong in my observations before I make any edits.

In the short term, I suggest reverting to the original summary.

I would like to suggest a through article review by some experienced editors who have not edited this page so far. This is with the hope that, some experienced editors can go through this page to clean it up and give it a more factual, concise and neutral tone.

I am requesting a senior experienced editor review of this article.

Blahblahblah4u (talk) 06:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You raise interesting issues. Certainly this article has expanded from its original condition which was primarily cut and paste material from Goldline's website, which was not an encyclopedic article. In the meantime, there have arose congressional and criminal investigations which are appropriate to incorporate into the article.
So, let's get to specifics. I'm going to create a separate thread for each concern so that we can more easily discuss your concerns. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing Blahblah's concerns[edit]

Article depends mostly upon Weiner's report[edit]

The emphasis is not simply on Weiner's report but also on the myriad of other reliable sources that have investigated Goldline. The fact that a congressional and criminal investigation is coming is encyclopedic. The article provides the substance of the complaints along with the response of the company and others.

You have suggested that Weiner is doing this because he wants to be mayor. Find a reliable source that states that his Goldline investigation is due to this motivation, then it may be included. The article does include several criticisms of Weiner's motivations. Are they insufficient?

Should include positive and negative examples (if at all)[edit]

The negative examples, I'm presuming, are those sourced to ABC News and Consumer Reports? Are you suggesting the "negative examples" should be excluded? They are included because reliable sources considered them relevant to the issue of overcharging. Wikipedia depends on WP:RSs. You suggest adding in positive examples. Please provide sources for those examples and certainly they would be candidates for inclusion. The article does state that their bullion prices are in-line with the market.

I have also found that sometime the editing hand has been focusing on the negative, by stating a fact then followed by a negative statement or conclusion (some supported by a reference, but some also just stating an obvious conclusion), when a positive one could have been given as well. In the summary is a situation where a positive example can be used (just like in some places in the article where a fact is followed by a negative example) to highlight a most obvious statement related to it's growing sales. The company is growing in to a $1 billion company because all it’s customers feel they are over-paying for falsely advertised and overpriced products? I don’t think so. Like some of the negative examples, a positive one can be used is this situation, like: $1 billion in sales with growth provided by satisfied customers who have allowed Goldline to achieve a BBB A+ rating.  Pluxigoop (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You need to provide specific cases with which you are concerned and recommend how to improve them. Then we can discuss. A vague "editing hand has been focused on the negative" isn't sufficient. Please point out where a statement or conclusion isn't supported by a reference as you stated above. Are there not positive statements throughout the article? Doesn't the article state that they are projected to make a $1 billion? Hasn't the article always stated that they have an A+ rating? Using a statement such as "provided by satisfied customers" is promotional (see WP:SOAP) and unsourced. Provide a reliable source, attribute the statement to said source and it will be a candidate for inclusion.
I find your statement on the edge of incivility and doesn't assume good faith (policies of Wikipedia) on my part which are obstacles for reaching consensus for improving the article. Give examples. Do you object to the balancing statements that are throughout the article? I have added in Goldline's position whenever it is available.
This talk page is not to discuss your opinions about Goldline -- that is what blogs and discussion forums are for. We are here to discuss how to improve this article. You clearly are a satisfied customer of Goldline. I am not a customer. You are clearly upset about the congressional investigation, California criminal investigations, the lawsuit, at ABC News, CBS News, Consumer Reports, etc. You should direct your concerns to those organizations asking how they can criticize a company with satisfied customers. However, I am here as an encyclopedist following the policies of Wikipedia. The article never states the criticisms as fact but as attributable statements and provides counter-positions when available -- the very essence of writing in a neutral editorial voice. I welcome recommendations to improve the article. Find where I incorrectly paraphrased a source, where I used a poor source, etc. In other words, an article requires work and research and is not the place to add in one's personal opinions.
Bottom line: instead of vague aspersions, specifically discuss article statements and argue which parts of Wikipedia policies and guidelines are being violated? Provide reliably sourced counter-statements. You have a clear point-of-view. Support your point-of-view with reliable sources. Reliable sources, attribution and verifiability are the cornerstones of Wikipedia. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is biased[edit]

Please provide specific areas that you see are biased and let's fix them. An article should evolve to be as neutrally written as possible. The neutral point of view policy states:

It is not a lack of viewpoint, but is rather an editorially neutral point of view. An article ... should clearly describe, represent, and characterize all the disputes within a topic, but should not endorse any particular point of view. It should explain who believes what, and why, and which points of view are most common. It may contain critical evaluations of particular viewpoints based on reliable sources, but even text explaining sourced criticisms of a particular view must avoid taking sides. ... It requires that all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material.

Where specifically in the article do you see bias? How would you suggest changing it to improve the article?

Uses personal blogs[edit]

Which of the sources are personal blogs -- i.e. blogs from non-professionals? You state, "especially since they sometimes have an editor making comments on the said referenced blog. The information from said reference is later used (in my humble opinion) to change the summary to one implying wrong doing instead of a neutral tone." It will be much more helpful if you could write in specifics. What comments are you concerned about? How was the information from said reference used to imply wrong doing instead of a neutral tone? How would you rewrite this "implication of wrong doing" into a "neutral tone"? Neutrality is:

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves.

Lead should exclude history and mention of investigations[edit]

The lead is a summary of the article -- the reader should be able to read the lead and get the gist of the article without having to read the rest. Goldline traces their history to 1960 -- frequently touts that they have been around for 50 years. The entire 50 year history is therefore appropriate for the lead. It is a one sentence summary of the history section. Per WP:LEAD:

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies.

The older lead you prefer reflected the state of the article at that time which made no mention of company history besides some cut and paste bullet points from Goldline's website. Since then, the article has been extensively expanded to include the company's full 50 year history and the lead has accordingly been changed to reflect that. Which part of Wikipedia policy or guidelines would support stripping 32 years of company history from the lead? This is part of their history, is it not? Could you provide a reliable source that states that Goldline doesn't say it is 50 years old and came from Deak?

You ask "how is it relevant and summary worthy that the three key executives from Goldline are connected to another company?" You may be right that detail isn't relevant in the summary. It is relevant in the history section in that the current manifestation of Goldline started in 1992 when A-Mark purchased the remnants of the Deak gold phone business.

To illustrate my point further, would you have been concerned if the lead read:

While the company traces its formation to a Deak & Co. subsidiary created in 1960, a firm that at the height of the gold bubble in the late 1970s was the largest storefront gold retailer, the current incarnation of selling gold by phone began in 1992 at A-Mark Precious Metals.

Would you have come to the talk page and complained, "The revised version below it, implies the company was the largest storefront gold retailer"? I suspect that you wouldn't have. An encyclopedia article should not simply reflect the desired take on its history from the company itself, but should reflect the history as set out by reliable sources. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 20:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the lead further to incorporate more of the salient points concerning their business and policies. The lead, by definition, is repetitive of the article's body. Any further suggestions to improve the lead are more than welcome. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 22:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Blahblah Response:

Even though some edits have been made that help clean up this opening summary, the second paragraph still has what I consider misleading or irrelevant and non summary worthy information.

Revised Current Summary paragraph:

While the company traces its formation to a Deak & Co. subsidiary created in 1960, a firm that at the height of the gold bubble in the late 1970s was the largest storefront gold retailer and later went into bankruptcy in the 1980s after allegations arose of money laundering for drug traffickers, the current incarnation of selling gold by phone began in 1992 at A-Mark Precious Metals when A-Mark principals Albarian, Fazio and Ozak joined Goldline.

The relevance of the use of the term gold bubble is in my mind questionable here, since the fact that Deak was the largest gold retailer had more to do with being capitalized, having the vision, business strategies and management skills, then the upward cycle of a commodities market cycle. There were many companies during this time with storefronts that did not have one or more of the previously mentioned assets - who did not increase their business size or number of story fronts to become the largest.

In my mind it would be better if the sentence read ‘...firm that in the late 1970s was the largest...’

Next in the long sentence is the questionable relevance of the references to money laundering and drug trafficking. I have looked, and can not find any court rulings that prove Deak of money laundering, let alone money laundering for drug tracking. It was only an allegation made be a white house committee, but never proven in a court of law. It is a fact that in the US legal process, the allegations of white house committee’s have been proven false, as well as true.

People declare bankruptcy because they are out of cash and assets to meet their overhead and financial commitments, not because of unproven allegations. Deak had grown rapidly during the expansion of the gold market, the strain of that growth, and the rapid decline of sales in 1982-83 were more likely the cause of the bankruptcy then the white house allegations. Having enough business and money, Deak would most probably survive the controversy of these allegations, especially if they had been proven false in a court of law. Also, I can find no statements by Deak, for the reasons it declared bankruptcy, except to re-organize their business.

In my mind it would be better if the sentence read ‘...bankruptcy in the 1980’s in order to reorganize the business, and the company was later bought and sold several times in the ensuing years. The current...'

Am I alone in thinking these edits would clean-up this summary paragraph and pull out some of the questionable and less relevant information out of it? Blahblahblah4u (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with removing the term "gold bubble" in the lead -- you are correct that the size of the company was due to the pioneering efforts of Nicholas Deak and I wasn't intending to dilute that with the term -- but certainly that would be a reasonable inference and should thereby be removed.
On the bankruptcy matter, If I was speculating or implying that the bankruptcy was due to the Organized Crime report on my own, then I would be violating both no original research and probably WP:NPOV. However, this statement is supported by the sources:
  • Mr. Deak, 33 years old and the son of the company's founder, said that the company's problems began this summer in Latin American, primarily Argentina, when Deak & Company was mentioned in connection with a United States Government inquiry into organized crime. ("Deak & Co. files for Chapter 11", New York Times, December 7, 1984, pg D1).
  • At the heart of the collapse, according to the Deak family, are allegations in a report by the President's Commission on Organized Crime about the laundering of money, so that drug traffickers could secretly repatriate profits to Latin America. ("Collapse of Deak & Company", New York Times, December 10, 1984, pg D1)
  • The run on the two subsidiaries, Deak Wall Street and Deak International, followed a report in October by the President's Commission on Organized Crime that showed that one of the subsidiaries was used for laundering South American drug money. ("Deak & Co. seeks protection under bankruptcy code.", American Banker, December 11, 1984)
  • Deak & Co. was forced into bankruptcy court as were two subsidiaries after charges last fall by the President's Commission on Organized Crimne that these units had "laundered" profits of Latin American drug dealers. ("Deak-Perera's Units May Be Sold In One Package", New York Times, March 12, 1985)
  • In 1978 Deak and one of its officers were convicted of failing to report $11 million of deposits by two Philippine businessmen. Later Deak & Company was alleged to have moved $7.6 million in cash for a cocaine ring. When the Federal report appeared with some of these allegations, Deak's business in South America was hit hard, Mr Deak's son, R. Leslie, said at the time. Customers were scared away, he said, and the withdrawal of their funds made several units in the group insolvent. "Entrepreneur With Old-World Charm", New York Times, November 19, 1985, page B3)
I have roughly 140 sources (aren't libraries grand?) on the history of Deak/Goldline. Everyone that discusses the bankruptcy without exception attributes it to the commission's report -- a commission empaneled by Ronald Reagan and not a house commission as you asserted (that was incorrect on my part). Nicholas Deak was described as the "James Bond" of international finance. This commission wasn't making idle allegations -- this was a long term known issue that required investigation. I could have included tens of other allegations involving Vietnam, Japan, etc. The reason further charges weren't brought because a) the problem went away with the bankruptcy and b) Nicholas Deak was murdered the following year.
I don't understand why you consider it irrelevant that the company went bankrupt because of the allegations (vs. your speculations that they went bankrupt for other reasons) but you consider it relevant to include that they were the largest firm? The sentence is not "questionable" -- it is entirely supported by reliable sources. These are the two of the most notable events in the company's history -- and since Goldline is saying they are the continuation of Deak, then they have to take the good with the bad. Why is the good only relevant but the bad should be considered less than worthy? Thoughts? ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 19:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect part of the problem was that the article text didn't make it clear that the sources (Deak in particular) stated that the bankruptcy was caused by the commission's report and instead left it vague by saying only that the bankruptcy occurred after the report allowing the reader to wonder if there was a connection or not, or, worse, that the page editor was pushing a POV implication unsupported by the sources. I've remedied that so it is clear that the bankruptcy was a result of the report. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have incorporated all of your other suggestions. The lead reads much better now -- thanks for the ideas! ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed this section, very interesting. I agree with Blahblahblah4u, the inclusion of the money laundering in the summary seems unnecessary and is very far in the past, many corporate changes ago and seems to be meant to somehow relate the current Goldline to something that happened 10 years before the current A-Mark principles came into the picture. It just seems really odd in the summary. Nobody seems to be questioning it in the history section, but I agree it really is out of place in the summary, which I also think is starting to get a little long.  Pluxigoop (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read up on WP:LEAD -- the lead should be 4 paragraphs. The length of this lead is typical and expected for an article of this size. The lead should be able to stand on its own. As for the bankruptcy, I believe I have outlined a clear set of arguments above. I am not satisfied with the counter argument that it is "odd". This is a notable historic event. If Goldline didn't state that they existed for 50 years, then you would be right. But they do. This is one of the most significant events int the history of Deak. I would like a clear explanation why only the positive events should be included but not the historical negative events? Please also discuss your changes here before modifying them per WP:BRD. Thanks. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 16:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a careful look at the above discussion. Blahblah wasn't arguing that the bankruptcy doesn't belong in the lead -- of course it does -- it was a major event in the company's history. His concern was that he didn't believe that the bankruptcy was related to the money laundering charges. The sources clearly support that relationship. That it is very far in the past is not an argument for an encyclopedia that is by its very nature a chronicler of the past -- Wikipedia requires that articles be written with "a long-term, historical view". By your argument, the statement that it was the "largest storefront gold retailer" should be excluded. It also was in the "very far past". But you are comfortable with that because it doesn't appear "odd" to you. But your comfort/discomfort (i.e., your POV) is not the criteria for inclusion -- the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are the determining filters. WP:LEAD clearly allows, in fact requires, a summary of the company's history and that said history should include notable controversies. Goldline touts their 50 year history. This article is not designed to be promotional material for Goldline. The use of the term "satisfied customers" and whitewashing their history in the lead isn't appropriate. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 16:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the argument that this occured "many corporate changes ago", that was remedied by Blahblahblah4us's addition of "The company was later bought and sold several times in the ensuing years" between the bankruptcy and the A-Mark statements. Even though one could make a convincing argument that Goldline is only 18 years old, Goldline itself asserts that it is 50 years old -- both in its marketing materials and public statements. There are no reliable sources that contradict Goldline's statement that it is 50 years old. Therefore, to treat the company as only 18 years is proscribed original research. Therefore, its history includes Deak's. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 17:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lawsuit is based on few complaints[edit]

You state "The ‘major’ lawsuits mentioned in the article are fairly minor customer complaints involving very small sums of money that every mid-sized company has to deal with, no matter how good their BBB rating is." No use of "major" was used to characterize the lawsuit. In fact, the article doesn't state the lawsuit is based on "fairly minor complaints involving very small sums of money" because the sources don't say that. I think you may be confusing the class action lawsuit and the California investigation which is based on 100 complaints -- and actually an unknown number directed at Goldline itself, as stated in the article.

Article is unorganized[edit]

You stated "article has become a little unorganized, repetitive". How would you suggest reorganizing an article? Before the current rewrite, there was a large "controversy" section that segregated this information. At Wikipedia, that is discouraged. Instead, the article incorporates and organizes the major policies of Goldline and then incorporates both balance, criticism and response. For instance, the Government vs. Private gold. You would prefer that we state Goldline's take on this marketing bullet point and then let the reader wade through through the rest of the article to the "Controversy" section to read what the response is? That is disorganized and is discouraged. But, again, there is no question that the article can be improved. Specifically state how to make said improvement. Give specific examples of where it is unorganized and repetitive.

You state there are "relevant and non-relevant paragraphs". Please be specific. Let's discuss the non-relevant paragraphs and discuss how to either improve or whether we should remove them.

"mistakenly" in "Goldline mistakenly identified Beck as paid spokesman"[edit]

The article had this sentence:

In 2009, Goldline identified Glenn Beck as a "paid spokesman" on their website which raised concerns with his employer, Fox News, who prohibit such a relationship; they later changed it to "radio sponsor"

with a NY Times article as a reference. (Carter, Bill (December 13, 2009). "Glenn Beck's Gold Deal Raising Questions at Fox". The New York Times. p. B4. Retrieved May 18, 2010.

While the article did mention that such an identification was claimed by the company to have been a mistake, the NYT article actually clearly disputes this, so the "mistakenly" is really a mistake itself. The source for this sentence does not suggest the identification was a mistake. In any event, subsequent text in the WP provides details. Prefacing and qualifying the sentence in this way is misleading. For those reasons, I deleted the word "mistakenly". --Atavi (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:CIVC-logo.JPG[edit]

The image File:CIVC-logo.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

caution[edit]

Respected Sir dont make the links that dont exist

Thanksk fatima. (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Goldline International. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Goldline International. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goldline_International&oldid=1207296552"