Talk:Larus and Brother Company

Legacy: Stony Point

Carole took out:

Larus' son Lewis Griffin Larus built the Stony Point estate house in Richmond and rebuilt it after a fire. It is now a school.

References

This is relevant and clearly covered in relation to the company and family that ran it. It goes to their influence and legacy on the community and area where they operated. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This is another WP:COATRACK issue, as I stated in the edit summary. If this was a company-owned building, it would be another story.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the coatrack policy is about. This subject matter is clearly related to the company and its legacy via the family that owned it:

"Lewis Griffin Larus in 1915 bought 49 acres at Stony Point. He was the son of Charles Durning Larus, who with brother Herbert Clinton Larus in 1877 formed the Larus & Brother tobacco-manufacturing company. Its House of Edgeworth line of pipe tobacco was introduced in 1903."

"Lewis Larus became vice president of the firm. His subsequent acquisitions at Stony Point increased the estate’s embrace to 500 acres."

It's covered, was purchased, and expanded by the family that owned the company. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

What you are describing is the definition of a tangential point. See the third sentence of WP:COATRACK: "It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects." If you need to look up tangential in the dictionary, that may help.

I thought we JUST got through discussing the fact that I don't need to go into detail explaining the guidelines to you (because you may deem your common sense to be more relevant). You are quickly headed for a block. I hope it's not so, but you've said you really don't want to hear about guidelines or common practice, so there we are.

If you change your mind, like I said, I'm an eternal optimist... but you seem to be very clear in your position. And, nothing, zero, that I have said has made any impact.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

And, I have not seen one thank you to anyone for improving your articles. Lots of complaints, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't undue or biased material. It's covered in direct relation to the company. I even quoted the content for you. Your opinion comes 2nd to the Richmond Planet which covered the historic property in relation to the company and family. We go by reliable sources not your misunderstandings of what's tangential and biased. FloridaArmy (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

How about you take this to Wikipedia talk:Coatrack articles or the Teahouse? You are not listening to me. Who was banned and sanctioned for not following guidelines? You talk as if it was me. I am done with this topic.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Misinformation

Now Carole is reverting to "The company was sold in 1968 to the Larus Investing Company, which was a holding company for its media business." When the source says: "On June 10, 1968, Larus & Brother Company was dissolved and a new corporation, Larus Investing Company, established as a holding company for three subsidiaries: WRVA-Radio, WRVA-FM, and the tobacco subsidiary, Larus & Brother Company. At this time, WRVA-TV was sold to the Jefferson Standard Broadcasting Company of Charlotte, N.C. On October 18, 1968, the tobacco subsidiary, Larus & Brother Company, was sold to Rothman’s of Canada, Limited, and the following year, WRVA-Radio and WRVA-FM were sold to the Southern Broadcasting Company of Winston-Salem, N.C. Larus Investing was then dissolved." Seems to be another reading conprehension issue. I'm sire we can get it sorted out eventually. Getting reverted when I fix stuff is tiresome though. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You have a low percentage of times that you get things right enough for the edits to fly. In this case you are 100% right. I got confused because the subsidiary of the same name was sold the same year. It has been rewritten.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

This section now reads: "The company was dissolved on June 10, 1968. Larus Investing Company, a holding company, was established for its subsidiaries. A subsidiary, Larus and Brother Company was established for its tobacco business. Two subsidiaries were established for the television and radio station, the media business dissolved. The tobacco enterprise operated under the name House of Edgeworth until 1974."

Apart from being a big muddle it also males no sense. Why can't we say:

"The company was dissolved and then reorganized in 1968 into the Larus Investing Company, a holding company for it and the media businesses. Larus & Brother Company was sold to Rothman’s of Canada Limited the same year and continued under the name House of Edgeworth until 1974."? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Hold on. I am getting shot-gunned with all your edits and discussions. Let me work on this. I thought I had the tobacco info together.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

FloridaArmy Ok, I made edits, looking at your draft and the source content... with an intention to simplify, since you are saying you don't like a lot of detail. And, I sought to keep the nature of the information, without too closely paraphrasing. How is:

The company was dissolved on June 10, 1968. Larus Investing Company, a holding company, was established for the tobacco and media businesses. The tobacco subsidiary, Larus and Brother Company, was sold later that year. In 1969, the last media subsidiary was sold.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Map

I don't understand what the map has to do with this company? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Not a big deal. Removed it.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Again, you have made stylistic changes... and I said I reworded to avoid close paraphrasing issues. Why the style changes if the wording isn't right, just not the way you'd' write it?–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You invoke "It" and "Its" a lot but it's not clear to what you are referring. The brand? The company? Whatever you were talking about in the semtence or paragraph preceding? Also, just reprdering a sentence does nothing to address plagarism issues. It just makes the wprding less coherent. Ise your own words. Some of your phrasing is incredibly awkward and hard to parse. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Difference of opinion. I re-wrote the article about WP:Close paraphrasing awhile back... so I am very familiar with the topic. No, it does not solve plagarism issue, but it helps. One of the issues with plagarism is keeping the same thoughts in the same sequence (i.e., change a word or two to a synonym). I have followed a lot of your work and you've taken sentences verbatim in quite a lot of places.

Plus, mixing up phrased sentences with simple sentences makes the reading a bit more interesting. I totally get that you don't like phrases in sentences.

You change the word from "it" to other similar words a lot. "It" is assumed to be the subject of the article. I will go back and look at that though. Give me a couple of minutes. I'll also look at simplifying sentences, if it doesn't create too much of a close paraphrasing issue. If it does, I respectfully choose to keep phrased sentences.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

By any chance, do you know that if you just edit a section, or just add a section, then edit conflicts are avoided?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I took a stab. See what you think. I don't see where "it" could have been confused for anything other than the company, but I made some changes. I also worked to make some simpler sentences.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

See also

Generally it is preferable to integrate subjects in the see also section into the article. Is there a reason we can't say they had a factory on tobacco row in the article? FloridaArmy (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Argh!!!! Read the edit summary!!!!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I read the edit summary, it said "since map is gone, moved Tobacco Row, Richmond from the body to a See also -- just had it to connect it to the map". Which doesn't explain why we can't just note this in the article. That was my question above. Why does it have to be moved to a see also if there isn't a map of Richmond included? There's an article on Tobacco Row. Why not just note that's where the factory was and link to it? FloridaArmy (talk) 02:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, it was a parenthetical just because the map was just to the right. It's not in the source that it's on Tobacco Row. Fine, I'll put it back. Arghh, are you totally serious? You give up on the article and then become such a... Oh! Whatever!–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I mever gave up on it. It was fine the way it was. Several citations. Was clesr and concise. It's nice some more details have been added but key bits have also been lost. And the qualoty of the writing has declined greatly as it's been expanded. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Great. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you ever, ever, ever say thank you instead of complaining?????–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

When you stop reverting my fixes and attacking me when I fix your mistakes. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

When you have identified a true mistake, I have admitted it! I can get why you are upset and find criticisms to be attacks... because you don't believe in guidelines. I am truly sorry that you feel attacked. I don't know what to do about that - I don't think that there is anything I can do about it, because we are coming from different places. But, I AM trying to work with you. Hang on for a bit so I can finish the edits, ok?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Labor issues

From the stemmery article:

"In the early 20th century, African-American workers at Larus and Brother Company tried to negotiate better pay through their union representative, but the company fended off the discrimination claim by saying that, while these workers made less than white workers, they performed a different job function, as they were confined to working in the stemmery rather than in the main factory. The segregated work structure and uneven pay scale was allowed to continue."

References

I would also like to reiterate my request that the Stony Point content be readded. While there's a lot of minutae in the article now, the legacy of this property is one that remains relevant and topical. A whole community and mall are named for it. And it was built by the company founder's son who then expanded the property while he was the company's president. And it is covered as such and noted in relation to the company and the family that ran it. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

1. Yes, I thought about the labor issues, too. Most of the Further reading articles are about the labor issues. There is a lot of content to read there. Are you suggesting just copying over the information, so it says the same thing in both article? Does that information correctly summarize the issue(s)? Or, do you want to do the research and summarize information about the labor issues?

2. I am not talking about the COATRACK issue any more, you are not listening. Others have discussed your issues with Coatracking in the past, and it's created edit war scenarios. Take it to Teahouse or the COATRACK talk page. Or, take it to your talk page. Seriously.

3. What does "And ot eas" mean? What does "And os covered as sich" mean?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:23, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm fine with copying over or at least noting it in summary. The use of prison labor and then the signifanct labor dispute over African American laborers in the company's stemmery seem significant. FloridaArmy (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree! I am guessing by your answer that you think that the summary pretty accurately summarizes the issue. There is a bit of a run-on sentence. And, since I am in the middle of editing, I will look at the sources as a double-check.–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:39, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I thought this was going to be easy, but I cannot find the information in the first source. It could be in the hidden page. And, I have a question about the dates - the second source makes it appear that the issue arose between 1942 and 1945ish time frame vs. early 20th century (which makes me think before the 1930s). There also seem to be two issues: pay rate and not being able to apply for the jobs the white women had. At least that's what I've gleaned so far. I see that you started the Stemmery article. If you can help set me right about any of this, that would help. Otherwise, I will keep researching, but I think I'll go back to the edits first and get those done.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And, a strike by white workers. And, black workers did get a pay raise - but, as stated above, there was still an unequal pay scale. It seems that there is more to this than what was in the summary. And, I've just read two pages out of 10 or so. Again, anything you might know about this that can help point me in the right direction would be good.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I updated this article and the blurb in the stemmery article.–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 June 2018

Please remove {{US-manufacturing-company-stub}} from the bottom of the page. The article is no longer a stub. Thank you –CaroleHenson (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Sherman Antitrust Act

I kept running across Larus and Brother Company in relation to the Sherman Antitrust Act... over a period of years. I couldn't find anything about how this resolved, partly because I don't have access to some of the sites, like legal sites, that have more information.

I am happy to start the research for what I can find, if someone can help with this.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• CaroleHenson Random, but this might have something. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:13, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I will check it out, thanks. It's downloading right now.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2018 (UTC)