Talk:Sterlington Collection

In the versions of the commercial I have seen the coat-of-arms with fleur-de-lys appears in a small diagram but seconds later in the commercial a larger coat-of-arms which is SUPPOSED to be the same thing appears. However, in this larger version the three fleurs-de-lys of France (from the claim by England's Kings ca. the Hundred Years' War to be also Kings of France by some tenuous genealogy) have been changed the three equal-arm crosslets. They may also be changed to white instead of yellow. The commercial blatantly and falsely appropriates the coat-of-arms to imply royal endorsement (which may not be infringement of a registered copyright in the USA but is, even so, still a clearly false and misleading claim in US law). The change of the fleurs to crosses may be an attempt to fabricate a defense if charges are brought. However I note that in the smaller emblem that appears in the commercial they did NOT change the fleurs.76.8.67.2 (talk) 10:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

Missionality

I don't really see the Mission value in articles about marketing scams which don't relate to fundamentalism, pseudoscience, the supernatural,etc. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 11:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the point either. What more could we possibly say about this than Wikipedia that would make it helpful to our mission? Blue (pester) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I got nothing. 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest deletion. ArchieGoodwin (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have anything about them at all though. My assumption in making this article was that hoaxes and scams deserve to be called out, and that's on mission. Wikipedia wouldn't find these guys notable, but we don't have a notability requirement. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 23:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

We do have specific missions & I can't see how this fits into any of them. It's just an average example of lax product and marketing standards; not much different to stuff you can see on any shopping channel. Delete. Wēāŝēīōīď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I had simply found the ads particularly under the original name to be quite dishonest, and liar. Like, overly so. And there wasn't really anything on the internet about them. I thought adding an article about it at RW to keep people from buying costume jewelry at inflated prices was a reasonably noble goal. It's a textbook example of the need for consumer skepticism. After all, snake-oil salesmen were able to operate and homeopathic are still able to operate because of a massive lack of healthy consumer skepticism. Creating articles about exploitation of sexual themes for increased sales is interesting, but not particular a noble goal of rationalism, however highlighting all but fraudulent products is entirely within the realm of promoting skepticism. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 10:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands of all-but-fraudulent products out there; most of them, like this, not very well known or noteworthy. Broad themes of deception & manipulating in advertising & marketing may be worth RW covering, but not individual obscure examples in banal detail about what kind of phony stones they use & what they call them etc. Wèàšèìòìď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

While everything you say here is true, the whole reason for Rationalwiki not having a notabillity requirement is that we can cover things that are not notable, but still within the range of our mission. Seriously, we're carrying bullshit from Maratrean and JimJast that specifically runs contrary to our mission, so why the fuck can't we have this article? Sure, it's "banal detail" (I am a pedant after all), but who gives a shit... no one is MAKING you read it. --Eira ^{OMTG! _{The Goat be Praised.}} 13:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)