This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goldline International article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created with Good intentions; let's expand it. Take care. ProfessorPaul ( talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Notability probably exists. Here is a breakdown of the sources I have seen so far:
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)
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.
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)
The result of the move request was page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Hold on" Tag gone--once a Member of Congress criticizes you, you are notable. Take care. ProfessorPaul ( talk) 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
LIQUIDITY:
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)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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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)
Respected Sir dont make the links that dont exist
Thanks k fatima. ( talk) 15:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mblr.dc.gov/corp/lookup/status.asp?id=71069{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.civc.com/portfolio/financial.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Goldline International article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created with Good intentions; let's expand it. Take care. ProfessorPaul ( talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Notability probably exists. Here is a breakdown of the sources I have seen so far:
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)
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.
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)
The result of the move request was page moved. Ronhjones (Talk) 02:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"Hold on" Tag gone--once a Member of Congress criticizes you, you are notable. Take care. ProfessorPaul ( talk) 02:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
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)
LIQUIDITY:
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)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.
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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)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.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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
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)
Respected Sir dont make the links that dont exist
Thanks k fatima. ( talk) 15:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mblr.dc.gov/corp/lookup/status.asp?id=71069{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.civc.com/portfolio/financial.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)