Template:Did you know nominations/Scott Simplot

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by — Maile (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn per nominator LavaBaron's request. — Maile (talk) 13

22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Scott Simplot

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Scott Simplot is the wealthiest man in Idaho?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Proceratium petrosum

Created by LavaBaron (talk). Self-nominated at 08:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC).

• Article is new enough, but not long enough (1423 characters at present) and with tighter writing it would be shorter. For example, J.R. Simplot or J.R. Simplot Company occurs four times in the first four sentences, with another J.R. in the next sentence. A sentence like "Simplot is the youngest son of J.R. Simplot, the founder of the J.R. Simplot Company, a diversified agriculture company." could be "Simplot's father founded the diversified agribusiness Simplot." The direct quote in the first sentence of the "personal life" section should be immediately followed by a reference, and could also be shortened, such as "Simplot's personality has been described as markedly different from his gregarious father, with Bloomberg writing that he is "unassuming, with a thoughtful, almost professorial air"." becoming "Bloomberg described him as being "unassuming, with a thoughtful, almost professorial air," a marked contrast to his gregarious father." Usually I wouldn't comment much on copyediting but with the current content I would shorten it, and it would be further from 1500 characters. Also, is there anything more interesting about him than his wealth? I'm not sure this is more than a stub, at present we learn:
  • He's rich, now running the company his father founded, and on several boards
  • Two degrees + an honorary doctorate (tis last point could provide more content for the article)
  • thoughtful and unassuming, unlike gregarious father
  • Divorced, 2 kids, sister divorced from Governor of Idaho

This needs work if it is going to make it under the DYK criteria. Sorry, LavaBaron, I know you have just returned, but even if the hook was interesting, this article doesn't belong on the main page in it's current state. It is well referenced, maybe there is additional content in those references? Maybe his work on other boards is of note? Is he engaged in philanthropic work? He's run the company for 15 years, anything to say about achievements? A DYK doesn't have to be approaching GA, but it does have to be past stub. Flesh this out and it can pass. EdChem (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, EdChem, its now expanded to be over 1500 characters.

To your other questions:

• I think the company's full name has to be written in each instance to avoid confusion with the subject of the article.
• Unfortunately, there is nothing more interesting about Scott Simplot. In the last 30 years he's donated $750 to two political campaigns and only made a single endorsement (in a Boise city council election), he's donated money to a variety of charitable causes but never been directly involved beyond writing a check or taking an honorary chairmanship nor has he purchased naming rights for himself on anything, his only hobby is purportedly collecting rocks but there's no RS that unambiguously says this. I wish I could pepper the article with anecdotes about how he owns a NBA team or enjoys freestyle rock climbing or has a car made out of solid gold, but there's nothing there. The only thing he's notable for is his money and the only interesting fact about him is that he has more of it than anyone else in Idaho. LavaBaron (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

• LavaBaron, I do not agree that there is nothing more than can be said. The Outstanding Alumni reference supports the following:

1. Simplot's leadership of the company has including establishing a research unit and is based in a philosophy of "continual learning and problem solving through the application of science and technology" guided by a commitment to "work that benefits humanity."
2. This research has included building collaborations with the University of Idaho to address agricultural challenges through science, and he has "personally sponsored a number of ground-breaking research projects."
3. Philanthropy includes supporting construction of the University's biotechnology lab, support of the Salvation Army, and chairing the expansion of the Idaho Food Bank, thereby alleviating hunger.
4. His Honorary Doctorate is in Administrative Science in recognition of "lifelong achievement, public service, and significant contributions to the state of Idaho and the nation."
5. Contributions to the state extend beyond the Simplon company, including as a founding member of the board of Idaho's largest private employer (Micron Technology).

• His Doctorate is likely partly from funnelling cash into the University, but you could cite the reason and use the above to support each area. There is certainly enough to support an article, and what you add is up to you. I for one am interested in his science-based approach, and the Wharton ref makes it clear there were clashes when Scott brought methodical and modern administrative approaches to management. I note also (from Forbes) that his sister is also a billionaire and they run the company together, which suggests only mentioning her as the ex-wife of a Governor is poor. (It reads to me like she wouldn't be mentioned were her ex- not famous, rather than that she has achieved in her own right and also happened to be married to someone famous.) Maybe something like that they share the duties of running the company which has made both billionaires, and that she was once married to the Governor. Just some thoughts, I've yet to re-do the review in light of the additions. EdChem (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe these platitudes are appropriate for an encyclopedia article. While this may be hosted on a university website it is essentially a recognition press release for a major donor and vague statements like "continual learning and problem solving through the application of science and technology work that benefits humanity" just don't have any place in an encyclopedia article, IMO. I don't even know what that means. It's marketing mumbo-jumbo. As for "supporting the Salvation Army" - that is also too vague to include in an encylcopedia article. Did he donate an old shirt or did he write a check for ten million dollars? Who knows? I've searched separately for detail and could find nothing. Finally, the DYK criteria do not require a review for an article's thoroughness, I think you may have confused the DYK standards with the GAN standards. Thanks for the review but I think we may need a second one here. LavaBaron (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

new reviewer needed LavaBaron (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: I have considered how to respond to you because I believe you have misunderstood my intent, and also taken an approach which I find fundamentally unacceptable. On the first point, if you look carefully at what I have said, I have offered thoughts and suggestions for you to consider and mandated very little. I said the length was unacceptable because it is not DYK-compliant. I said about copyediting as it would shorten the article when length is an issue, and leave it arguably a stub (an ineligible). What you did about these observations needed to be up to you because you know the sources and also what you have looked for and been unable to find. I most definitely did not say everything must be done to pass DYK. I did not say that GA standards applies. However, remember that the purpose of the DYK criteria is to ensure quality articles on the main page, so 1501 characters may be technically compliant but it does not mean that it is sufficient to be non-stubby or main page-worthy.

The approach you have taken in calling for another reviewer is unacceptable to me because it suggests the submitter can decide that a reviewer / review is unacceptable. If you want to argue a reviewer should be replaced, go to WT:DYK and make an argument for bias or incompetence or whatever, or talk to the reviewer, but I do not accept a submitter has a unilateral right to "fire" a reviewer, so to speak. You can withdraw a submission, but while it is a submission, no submitter can get rid of whoever chooses to review without very good reason. I have had reviewers I disagreed with, and even ones I have found difficult to work with. I have certainly had cases where being able to say to a reviewer "I'm right, you're wrong, go away" might have been both emotionally satisfying and efficient for finding someone more likely to see my perspective, but doing so would lead to fundamentally undermining quality assurance - and DYK has enough issues with this as it is. Your recent thread at WT:DYK left me tempted to have this discussion there, but I am trying to stay collegial and treat your above post as some misunderstand + perhaps a bad day for each of us.

I will make some specific suggestions (additions in red, since you are seeing my comments (which were meant to go to issues, rather than specific text) as unencyclopaedic, and as I take your point in several cases:

Early life and education

Simplot is the youngest son of J.R. Simplot, the founder of the diversified agriculture company J.R. Simplot Company, and his first wife Rudy Rosevear. He received a Bachelor of Science in Business from the University of Idaho in 1968 and went on to earn a Masters in Business Administration (MBA) from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in 1973.

Career

Simplot first obtained a seat on the J.R. Simplot Company board of directors in 1970 and was hired as the company's director of planning and information technology in 1973, following his graduation from Wharton. He was quickly promoted to more senior positions and became chairman of the board of directors in 2001 after he reportedly "pushed out" his father, J.R.

During his time at the company, Simplot engineered the lucrative early-stage investment in Micron Technology, which grew to 22-percent of that company by 1996. He served on the Micron board from its inception, and by 2004 the company was the largest private employer in Idaho. He is also responsible for the company's 2003 purchase of the Australian arm of John West Foods. He collaborates with his sister, Gay, in running the family-owned business. Under Simplot's leadership, the company has established an ongoing research unit which collaborates with the University of Idaho to address agricultural challenges through science, and he funded supporting construction of the University's biotechnology lab.

In addition to his seat on the J.R. Simplot Company board, he also serves on the boards of directors of nearly a dozen other companies and chaired the expansion of the Idaho Food Bank. In 2016, Forbes named him the wealthiest man in Idaho, with an estimated net worth of $2.1 billion.

Personal life

Bloomberg described him as being "unassuming, with a thoughtful, almost professorial air," a marked contrast to his gregarious father, which was reflected in their different management styles with J.R. acting on hunches and Scott preferring detailed analysis of potential business actions. He is divorced and has two daughters. His sister, Gay Simplot, is also a billionaire and is divorced from the Governor of Idaho, Butch Otter.

In 2004 Simplot received an honorary doctorate in Administrative Science from the University of Idaho in recognition of "lifelong achievement, public service, and significant contributions to the state of Idaho and the nation."

References

Thoughts, LavaBaron? EdChem (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My thought, EdChem, is that you should feel free to make those edits if you feel strongly about them. Wikipedia is edited by people like you and me, not by some mysterious force.

I, however, will not make these edits regardless of how many times you demand it nor how much red highlighting you use. As I have repeatedly told you, I do not believe that, what is essentially a press release, is an appropriate source for layering platitudes and WP:PUFFERY as fact-statements into a WP article (e.g. "to address agricultural challenges through science" or your previous, even more outrageous, suggestion of "[Simplot's] guided by a commitment to work that benefits humanity").

Good luck or whatever. LavaBaron (talk) 06:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: I have made some changes to the article which should be uncontroversial. The only one using the "ui" reference is stating what the doctorate was for. I have also looked at the series of recent edits you have made to this template and state again that I have not demanded you do anything, but made suggestions. I highlighted in red so you could see the changes easily. What I have added are edits based on the other sources. Your skills at AGF are sadly poor at present, and frankly if you continue as you are you are going to get sanctioned again, in my opinion. Having now made changes to the article (since you would not have a rational discussion), I will leave it to someone else to judge this nomination. I urge you to reflect on your behaviour and comments because I believe they are going to cause you ongoing problems. EdChem (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem - thanks, your edits look fine to me. I'm glad I challenged you to improve the sourcing and composition in your first two suggestions (and I'm glad you rose to the challenge!); your third version seems perfectly acceptable and a net improvement to the article. Good job. LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

To the new reviewer: The article is now sufficiently long to qualify for DYK, and I am of the view that my additions remove the possibility of it being considered a stub. The hook is dull, but cited in the article, and it is now compliant with DYK rules in all aspects which I have checked. I think LavaBaron's behaviour on this page has been poor, but that is no reason to refuse to promote. The source which he dislikes has not been used additionally from his uses except for the statement of the citation with the award of the honorary doctorate. LavaBaron clearly believes he knows truth^TM about this case, and may be right, though his application of policy is selective and his objectivity is consequently a concern. I know very little about this topic beyond what I read in sources, and I suggest that the new reviewer also look to sources over LavaBaron's assertions of inside knowledge (as an aside, I have IRL knowledge of this subject that makes the intensely [[WP:PROMOTIONAL]] statements [e.g. "to address agricultural challenges through science". etc.] from the press release you are demanding I source even more ludicrous; we should stick to [[WP:RS]] to protect the project from the public ridicule that I guarantee you will follow if this type of language is inserted sourced to the UI donor press release you've latched onto). EdChem (talk) 11:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

EdChem - you accepted my challenge to improve your sourcing and composition and were able to positively improve the article. Good job!

However, you do your efforts a disservice by choosing to exit by storming off with a final shot across my bow. DYK review is not the place.

I told you, twice, I would not add WP:PROMOTIONAL statements from a press release (what you declare as "the source he dislikes") after you demanded they be inserted. If refusing to add WP:PUFFERY to a WP article is indicative of my "behaviour" it's an indication I'm proud to accept. I'd advise you take a moment to review WP:RS and embrace a more open-minded, less defensive, view to future GF attempts by other editors to gently educate you about its purpose, reason and mandates. None of us are perfect, me included, and there's no shame in needing help from other editors from time to time; the only shame is not accepting it with grace and thoughtfulness. Best of luck with your future endeavors. LavaBaron (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: what I added was what I suggested to you above - same sources and all - but skipping the changes based on the allegedly promotional source, which you unfortunately focussed on so much that you did not recognise or address the suggestions arising from other sources. I withdrew from the DYK not to storm off but because in editing the article substantively I ceased to be a neutral editor and thus became unable to give a final position on the hook. If you had taken up those parts of my suggestions you now find acceptable, we would be in a different situation. I am glad that you now recognise those changes as both justifiable and positive, as I have accepted that nothing in the material you see as contentious is important enough to fight over. Better sources may become available in time, but until then I see why you see the source as weak and have chosen to allow your position to prevail. Were I reviewing, my only issue would be whether the hook is uninteresting, but that is now for some other editor to consider. On your behaviour, however, it was not about editorial decisions but about not acting in line with AGF, repeatedly misrepresenting my suggestions as demands, and statements like "good luck or whatever." You have been sanctioned before, it is inevitable that you will be under scrutiny - whether that is fair or not, it is a fact. Acting moderately and prudently would be the wiser course, and I hope you can reflect on this. No one is perfect, I agree, but perhaps the grace and thoughtfulness you advocate for me might also be beneficial closer to home? EdChem (talk) 19:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks EdChem! LavaBaron (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

• I see those Dale Carnegie courses are really paying off for Lava Baron. How about

ALT1 ... that Scott Simplot has a Gay sister who was married to a Butch?

Paging Martinevans123. EEng 10:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I may have to hide away from this one. But if anything springs to mind, I'll let you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC) But surprised to see you here, EEng. Thought you'd be still out on the streets with your banner.!

• I like the idea of ALT1, it'd be good in the quirky slot. Clever, EEng. EdChem (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

At first I meant ALT1 just as a joke, but now that people are taking it seriously, I figure -- why not? (Something like Donald Trump's presidential bid, I guess.) And compared to the missionary position and Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators, this is tame. EEng 18:25, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if it will be seen as acceptable, but I like the cleverness of it, and the original proposal is dull IMO. I can't tick, though, so see what others think. EdChem (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

If you've stopped ticking, page Dr. Freud. EEng 20:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

But who wrote it? Was it the Raunch Hands? [1]?? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Closer - Please remove me from being credited with this DYK if this vile Alt1 proposal that uses LGBT self-identity labels as diminutives is approved. I have no interest in my nomination being used to marginalize the gay/lesbian community by framing them as the butt of a joke. LavaBaron (talk) 07:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, not so fast EEng, you heartless vile bigot. Just cut it out. And we don't want any butt jokes, either. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that Scott Simplot, the wealthiest man in Idaho, has a sister who is also a billionaire?

... or is this just too tabloid? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd call ALT2 far too boring; unless they each raised themselves from poverty independently to become wealthy, it's effectively saying "rich people tend to have rich families" which I imagine the readers already know. I (possibly for the first time in history) agree with LavaBaron that ALT1 isn't appropriate, as it has the potential to offend a lot of people for very little benefit; while WP:NOTCENSORED means we don't remove things purely because they might cause offence, it doesn't mean we have to go out of our way to be offensive, and laughing at other peoples' names is a fairly low blow. (Personally, I'd say the lesson from this is "not every article ought to be included in DYK, since some topics can be entirely worthwhile to those who already care but totally uninteresting to general readers".) ‑ Iridescent 10:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, plenty of folks would see wealth per se, as a reason for notability, to be quite offensive. There must be something interesting in that article, surely(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominator wants to withdraw. [[2]] Cowlibob (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn per nominator LavaBaron's request. — Maile (talk) 13

22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)