Talk:KitchenAid

Shall we keep this? Several (apparently company-related) editors have deleted it, and several of us have restored it. Frankly, I may have acted out of a defensive feeling. While the words are true, someone did make the post, is this in any way important? Could one of you Smart People make one of those polling things here? As for me, as for now, I say Remove. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PaulinSaudi - in my view just remove.--Fox1942 (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added the RfC header and restored the content pending the conclusion of this RfC. AutomaticStrikeout 03:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep, but word neutrally. It appears to have garnered significant coverage. Aside from being poorly written (doesn't specify which debate, should probably have a "[sic]" noting that she actually died 3 days before he was elected, etc.), it fails to note KitchenAid's (quite valid) explanation that the employee who tweeted had intended to use their personal account (in fact, the use of the word "verified" seems to be for the purpose of implying that the company in fact intended this). Furthermore, the overall phrasing is opinionated in tone: No matter what, if we choose to keep this, it should start with something like "KitchenAid was the subject of controversy for...". I'd be happy, as an uninvolved editor, to post a proposed neutral phrasing here, if others would like. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do. I am still inclined to delete it, but would appreciate something better written to try to change my mind. (What does "verified" mean in this case anyway?) --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 04:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"Verified" means that Twitter's ascertained that it's the property of the company. It's a process that exists to differentiate from spoofsters, but in this context, I think it serves to associate more blame with the company - which normally wouldn't necessarily be inherent POV, but is in this case, since part of the controversy is over whether KitchenAid was to blame in the first place. Anyway, here's the proposed text:

More information First draft ...

First draft

KitchenAid became the subject of controversy after its Twitter account posted, after President Obama mentioned his grandmother's death in a presidential debate with Governor Mitt Romney,[1] "Obamas gma even knew it was going 2 b bad! 'She died 3 days b4 he became president.'" (Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, died November 3rd, 2008, five days before he was elected president; he did not become president until Inauguration Day, January 20th.) KitchenAid quickly deleted the message, tweeting "Deepest apologies for an irresponsible tweet that is in no way a representation of the brand’s opinion."[2] Later that evening, KitchenAid senior director of marketing[3] Cynthia Soledad explained, via the company account, "Deepest apologies for an irresponsible tweet that is in no way a representation of the brand's opinion. #nbcpolitics"; "I would like to personally apologize to President @BarackObama, his family and everyone on Twitter for the offensive tweet sent earlier."; "It was carelessly sent in error by a member of our Twitter team who, needless to say, won't be tweeting for us anymore."; "That said, I take full responsibility for my team. Thank you for hearing me out" (Tweets separated by semicolons).[4] Before the debate, KitchenAid had around 24,000 followers[5]; by November 7th, they had gained 2,500.[6] One corporate consultant[7] described their response as "a case study in damage control."[8] [1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2012/10/04/company-apologizes-for-tweet-about-obamas-grandmother/1612701/ [2] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/kitchenaids-obama-tweet-shows-dangers-of-multiple-twitter-accounts/ [3] http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/kitchenaid-apologizes-for-tweet-insulting-obama/ [4] http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/kitchenaids-obama-tweet-shows-dangers-of-multiple-twitter-accounts/ [5] http://mashable.com/2012/10/03/kitchen-aid-obama-dead-grandma/ [6] http://www.ksl.com/?nid=151&sid=22871286 [7] http://www.fastcompany.com/user/jonathan-rick [8] http://www.fastcompany.com/3001908/how-kitchenaid-spun-twitter-crisis-pr-coup

Close

I pretty much re-wrote it from the ground up. I've added several relevant points of information, included both of KitchenAid's responses, thrown in some non-political analysis, and taken out any references to explicitly liberal sources. I think, provided this meets the notability criteria (and with citations from the LA Times, CNN, ABC, and USA Today, I can't see how it couldn't), this version or something like it doesn't meet the grounds for removal. (Note: Also potentially worth including would be ABC's reference to a previous incident where a Microsoft employee accidentally used the company handle in a tweet criticizing Ann Coulter. Technical note: I had to prematurely outdent this part of the conversation so the proposed text would render the way I wanted.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I thank you for your hard work. In truth, the section is now over-large and further convinces me We out to axe any mention of this triviality at all. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Paul, but I don't think you have grounds for that. This clearly meets the notability guidelines. If you're worried about WP:UNDUE, we can shorten it a bit, but I don't think there's any policy that justifies simply not mentioning this. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 16:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seeing that Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view, there has to be a criticism section. As for wording, it needs to be as neutral as possible, but without it the article isn't from a neutral point of view. Go Phightins! 04:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that it be a section entitled "Criticism?" Because I'd think "Twitter controversy" or words to that effect should suffice, both because "Criticism" sections are more associated with inherently controversial topics, or for cases where something's been systematically criticized, as opposed to just getting in trouble for one thing. Or were you just using the phrase "criticism section" generally? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 04:58, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I just do not see a need for "Criticism" section, at least not on this issue. Someone messed up. In truth, the company did not. The story might be important when discussing social media stuff, but it is not even a footnote when talking about this brand. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It was general...my point is that for the article to be written from a neutral point of view, there needs to be coverage of the "bad side" if you will, without lending undue weight to said section. "Twitter controversy" is fine, I suppose, but the name is not the important thing, it's the content. Go Phightins! 20:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, guys, I seem to be the odd man out here. My thought process is that a person looking for information about KitchenAid might want to know about products, ownership, management and labor relationships, even where the things are made. But of what importance (to anyone) is this slip-up by a minor employee? Really, the introduction of a new dishwasher seems many times more significant. In such a short article, even a brief mention would seem to give the incident undue weight. I am not trying to hush anything up, but this is some minor stuff. But of course I may be wrong, and I bow to the majority opinion. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this article is too short, but I think it would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater to not mention a notable recent controversy (in a neutral tone) simply because the rest of the article is sub-par. Anyone mind if I replace the current version with my proposal, for the time being? (Even as a stopgap if you want to continue this discussion - I think we can agree that what I've written is preferable to what it says now, at least?) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:44, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to be too bitter, but do as you will. I find even your re-written paragraph to be too much. Perhaps we ought to give another week or so to get some sort of consensus. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 14:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving the RfC open, but I'll be provisionally replacing the offending text with my version, since the current section is unacceptable for Wikipedia. Obviously, you and all other editors should feel free to be bold and edit "my version" as you see fit. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 02:03, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I hate to admit it, but your paragraph does look pretty good in the articlespace. Good job. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) I think all this article needs is more background/depth. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 03:28, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When a controversy is valid, well-sourced and neutrally written, the only way to fix the Undue problem is to improve the rest of the article. However, I think the current version needs to be substantially condensed. I took a crack at it and I think it is no longer Undue.Corporate 16:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the shorter one better, but wonder if we could get away from even quoting what was posted. It barely makes sense now and I wonder how it will look in a year or two. But consider the source, I was for hacking it out totally. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, though without it, "inappropriate message" is a bit vague. The sentence starting "about the death" could be slightly re-written to explain a little more about the message. Since the message itself is incoherent, maybe secondary sources will offer some explanation on what was offensive about it or help us figure out how to describe it. Corporate 18:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the happy medium is to quote the tweet, note the deletion and subsequent apology, and then mention that there's been no negative impact, using the "P.R. coup" guy as a reference. That way we keep it concise, but establish the relevant facts and the results. Would anyone mind if I follow Corporate's lead and revise the current version to show what I think we should add? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 06:57, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Do as you will and I shall sit here, Zeus-like making judgement. --Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha who does that make me? Heracles? ... Ganymede? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 11:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The rationale behind what I chose to include my latest revision - which was exactly halfway between my first revision and Corporate Minion's, in terms of word count - is as follows: I've given the full text of the original tweet, since it's the center of any controversy. I've given the text of two of Soledad's response tweets, to show how KitchenAid handled the situation. I've mentioned the impact (or lack thereof), since it establishes any enduring notability. And there are a few things that I put back in simply to avoid an American bias: I'm not sure how many foreign readers, for instance, would know when Election Day and Inauguration Day are, or what the difference between the two of them is. Likewise, the context of the original tweet seems worth noting at least briefly.

Since this is, I would argue, the bear bones of what we need to say, perhaps we should go about any further reductions in size (if any more are needed) by discussing them on a point-by-point basis? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 12:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the re-written version is outstanding. Go Phightins! 12:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Phightins has spoken, who am I to doubt? Thundercats Are Go!--Paul, in Saudi (talk) 13:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think it's important to include that they gained 2,500 followers (they have 28,000 as of today). Any kind of Twitter controversy inevitably leads to a bump in followers and a 10 percent leap is not really that important. But meh. Corporate 14:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a minor hiccup without serious consequences. Critisism is welcome, but the you are talking about serious issues like product recalls and court cases. The Banner _talk 23:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Include but with much less weight than the rewritten version. This was a rogue employee, not the action of the organization.

KitchenAid became the subject of controversy in 2008 when an employee used the company Twitter account to post an "irresponsible" and "offensive" message about the death of Obama's grandmother. KitchenAid quickly deleted the message and apologized.^[1] One corporate consultant^[2] described their response as "a case study in damage control."^[3]

Jojalozzo 22:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem is that not including the original tweet comes across as burying the lead at best, and whitewashing at worst; and then, to not include the response would clearly lend undue weight. As I said earlier, I think the best way to discuss this section from here on out is to go at it on a point-by-point basis. I'm not quite sure, for instance, how the current version fails to note that this was not the action of the organization: Basically all sources agree that KitchenAid didn't do anything wrong, and I don't see anywhere where we imply otherwise. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 23:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jojalozzo in including the topic, but that it's still undue. In the spirit of taking it one item at a time as proposed, I think we should delete this: "KitchenAid gained 2,500 Twitter followers,[16] and one corporate consultant[17] dubbed Soledad's actions "a case study in damage control."[18]"

I don't think minor fluctuations in Twitter following are important, nor what one consultant says. Corporate 01:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have come over to review this old RFC request, and from the review I have done it looks like it has been satisfactorily resolved. The section was retained, but trimmed down appropriately, as well as the rest of the article increasing in overall size as to avoid to much undue weight being applied to that specific section. I am going to close out this RFC since it was from over 30 days ago, and seems good at this point. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)