Talk:IAC Inc./Archives/2016

Problems with lead paragraph

The lead currently contains the following:

The Chief Executive Officer is Joey Levin,[3] Since June 2015. Prior to his term he was the CEO of IAC Search & Applications, overseeing the desktop software, mobile applications, and media properties that comprise IAC’s Search & Applications segment[4]

This was removed twice and reinserted twice. Problems:

• There are various punctuation, grammar and capitalization mistakes in this paragraph.
• The CEO's name is already contained in the infobox.
• The information about the CEO's previous lengthy job title and description is not important enough to be contained in the lead. It is not part of the "summary of its most important contents" nor does it serve as "an introduction to the article" as required by WP:LEAD. Also relevant: "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." Further: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic", which contradicts the fact that currently over half of the lead deals with the CEO's previous job, information that plainly does reflect this information's importance to the topic at hand.

I therefore propose that:

• the punctuation/grammar/capitalization be corrected;
• the information about the CEO's previous job be removed from the intro. If this information is deemed important enough, it might be moved to the article's history section.

AxelBoldt (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The lede paragraph is intended to be a summary of the article, and the infobox is a summary of important facts about the subject, so there is inevitably overlap between them. This is normal, there is expected to be duplication between the lede, the infobox and the article. As for grammatical problems, there are none that wer enot easily corrected without removal of the sentence. BMK (talk) 03:56, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea Clinton

There has been an effort by one (or more) SPA('s) and socks to link Chelsea Clinton to The Daily Beast's apparent editorial bias against Bernie Sanders. So far as I can tell, this attempt to link the two is a low-level rumor and innuendo campaign lacking any actual evidence of undue influence. The lack of evidence and lack of national attention given to this clearly partisan effort indicates to me that reporting these rumors here would be disproportionate and essentially POV pushing. I have, however, published a list of the IAC's board of directors (sourced, of course) in this article without further comment. I used Microsoft's article as my example for how this might best be accomplished. I've placed this information at the bottom of the article so as not to give it undo significance. We might also consider adding a similar section on IAC's senior management. Thoughts for improvement? Rklawton (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)