Talk:Sierra Pacific Industries

Need info

It's stunning that a two-liner is all there is about such a big corporate.

All sorts of hits over on Commons btw

Just saying Elinruby (talk) 17:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Check the captions of these images:

Some company history here.

In 1995 SPI bought a sawmill in Sonora that had originally been built In 1901 before passing through the hands of several owners. Market forced a shut down in 2009, reopened in 2011 acter an equipment updatw

A.A. Red Emmerson

The following are some other leads, lightly screened for plausible RS: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][ Elinruby (talk) 02:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

• Mention in acknowledgements of a thriller here
• Possible hit in land records, Douglas County OR. Lack bandwith to scroll [11]

Lumber IndustrY in CA: [12]

Some links for ya

There are a few reliable sources:

This family you have probably never heard of owns more land than anyone else in America

SER Profile of Sierra Pacific Industries

CBEA Profile of Sierra Pacific Industries

NFWF profile of Sierra Pacific Industries

Getting clear with Sierra Pacific Industries Clear cutting controversy...

Bloomberg Profile

13 Million Dollars in Fines Paid by Sierra Pacific Industries in Settlement

→StaniStani 22:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition, from the San Francisco Chronicle archive:

Clear-cutting controversy

• June 26, 2000: has info on company
• July 23, 2000 (opinion)
• July 26, 2000: halts Calaveras project
• July 27, 2000 (opinion)
• August 21, 2000 (opinion: proposed state clearcutting moratorium)
• May 23, 2008 (AP: state supreme court okayed clearcutting)
• January 10, 2010 (it had applied for carbon offsets)
• January 31, 2010
• February 29, 2008

Land swap(s) and possibly related proposed housing developments

• July 19, 2000
• June 5, 2001
• December 16, 2003 (lawsuit against proposed development)
• September 5, 2013 (Residential development blocked)
• February 16, 2022 (planned development)

Wildfires

• July 17, 2012 (agreeing to pay settlement for 2007's Moonlight Fire)
• January 19, 2015 (opinion)
• June 26, 2022 (closure of lands to public because of fire risk)

Sierra Pacific Foundation

• August 3, 2018 (short)
• November 27, 2018

Acquisition of Fibreboard's wood products division

• June 21, 1995 (v. short)
• August 11, 1995 (v. short)
• September 27, 1995 (v. short)

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Also sources

• THE LAST TIMBER BARON. By: SORVINO, CHLOE, Forbes, 00156914, 5/31/2018, Vol. 201, Issue 4

Business Source Complete

• A Town Buries the Axe. By: Kiester, Edwin, Smithsonian, 00377333, Jul99, Vol. 30, Issue 4

MasterFILE Complete

• INTO THE WOODS: Sierra Pacific Industries finds promise and profit in the old-fashioned lumber industry. Virgin, Bill

Seattle Business. Oct2017, Vol. 28 Issue 10, p20-26. 4p.

• Supreme Court Declines To Hear Billionaire Red Emmerson's Moonlight Fire Case. By: Sorvino, Chloe, Forbes.com, 00156914, 6/25/2018

Business Source Complete

• Sequoias Preserved In Largest U.S. Forest Carbon Deal. Energy Daily, 03645274, 10/5/2009

Database: Business Source Complete

• Forest products firm buys wood, vinyl windows makers. By: Kavanaugh, Catherine, Plastics News, 1042802X, 8/11/2014, Vol. 26, Issue 21

Business Source Complete

• Lumber mill owner sells power to Washington utility. Wise, Stuart. IJGlobal. 3/30/2020, pN.PAG-Business Source Complete
• California: Logger Will Pay Penalty For Fire.

New York Times. 7/18/2012, Vol. 161 Issue 55836, p18. 0p. Reading Level (Lexile): 1310. MasterFILE Complete

• Louisiana-Pacific to get $50 million for timber tract.

New York Times. 05/08/97, Vol. 146 Issue 50786, pD4: MasterFILE Complete

• Prosecutors Burn Down the Law.

Wall Street Journal - Eastern Edition. 1/3/2015, Vol. 265 Issue 2, pA10-A10. 1/4p: MasterFILE Complete

• Sacramento Expands Renewable Energy Program.

Pollution Engineering. Nov2007, Vol. 39 Issue 11, p22-23. 2p: Business Source Complete

Thanks to all Guilty Parties. ——Serial Number 54129 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone find more information on the gene bank they created?

The book Elderflora: A Modern History of Ancient Trees by Jared Farmer (ISBN: 9781035009046) says this company created a gene bank of trees from Sequoia National Park. I can't find any other sources that back this up.

I said in a private message to an editor this company has kept a remarkably low profile- so it's proving difficult to research (which is motivating me more). I have access to a couple of licenses of collections of written text, so if anyone's struggling to access anything, drop me a message on my talk page and I'll have a look. I'll write it myself due to licensing restrictions on distributing large portions of text. This topic seems to dodge the media limelight very well, and are more discussed in environmental publications. TheSpacebook (talk) 12:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

TSB, I remember I didn't think you were a troll either  :) But Yngvadottir went to all that trouble keeping their Watergate-style source a secret!

Thanks for the heads up. I found one other thing, too. I put their conservation work in its own section... They obviously do a fair bit (for their reasons, of course), but it would balance the litany of criticism very slightly. Thoughts. ——Serial Number 54129 14:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

It's good to be back! Was probably for the best; I understand any mention of my name is likely to cause web traffic to flow wherever it's mentioned, and de-rail the conversation. I look forward to putting my time and resources to better use. TheSpacebook (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

A general thought so far is that the article might end up giving undue weight to the Emmersons. I understand it's a family owned business, but might edge close to becoming a WP:COATRACK if this is not noted? But looks okay now, the article is already in good hands.TheSpacebook (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I need some advice on how Wikipedia is supposed to handle POV-pushing sources. I have access to the book Bright Green Lies: How the Environmental Movement Lost Its Way and What We Can Do About It by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Max Wilbert; which I'll have a proper look at later. From my brief scan (and the title), I'm getting the feeling this book is pushing the idea that the company either greenwashes or does conservation work to protect their financial interests. In my opinion, the company is closer to the "actions of a family" working under the name of company, so would BLP apply to the article? TheSpacebook (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

POV is a nightmare of a minefield, and yeah, it is complicated by the fact that anything that mentions living people comes under BLP, even if only at separate points. That sounds like it might be worth using as an example of the kind of criticism the firm attracts, perhaps? Also,. btw, what was the page # of your Fleming/Artz book? ——Serial Number 54129 15:46, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Added page number. The copy I initially accessed was just a full text manuscript of the contents. So I accessed an epub copy to find the page number. Meaning that the page number might be different to the print copy, as the reader I opened it in changes the page number based on the display options. Is there any way to make a note of this? No worries, I got it sorted. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I usually use the |loc= parameter for ebooks etc. They're a complete PITA, but a chapter heading is enough for readers to just ctrl+f. Basically, the bloody publishers haven't sorted out page numbers yet, and until they do, what can we do?! Anyway, I'm finished for the night (UTC). If @TheSpacebook, Stanistani, Elinruby, and Yngvadottir: feel like turning my turgid prose into some good ol' AmEng, please do. Or anything else, of course. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 17:31, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I edited the top part to be less POV-pushing. I'm contemplating the removal of the line Emmerson has been described as "low-key, hard-working and notoriously shy of publicity". It feels very 'about page on website'-esque. But not strong enough for me to boldly remove it. TheSpacebook (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ah good, TheSpacebook, you decloaked :-) And Serial Number 54129, I hadn't caused you to bow out by editing through the "in use" sign :-) (And I'm sure it's as far as can be from turgid!) Insofar as my insights are of much use ... I was thinking the article was fast approaching the point where it needed either more subdivision. My go-to solution for avoiding POV problems—and the vast majority of sources here will have some POV, whether "business is good!" or "clearcutting is ebil!" or something in between—is brief summary. But we're already way writing at some length, so ... However, I don't think it's necessary to say more than once and very briefly that Red Emmerson keeps a low profile. And it should be relatively easy to avoid the impression that we're coatracking about the family, given that there isn't much beyond who became COO when, and so on. One small point that will help there is to stick to the US usage of "it" for the company; I noticed one BrEng "they" after I saved my edit, and a US reader might think that means the Emmersons in some personal way. Now, coffee :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

"Curly", "Red", "R. H." and "A. A."

Having a quick scan, the uninformed reader might get confused about who is who. I keep finding myself briefly pausing to clarify that "R. H. Emmerson" is not "Red Emmerson".

All the sources I've found have an inconsistent style. There seems to be no correct way to do it, but seem to favor "Curly" and "Red". (I don't want a repeat of the previous issues I've raised about nicknames). I'd vote for the first mention of their names to be R. H. "Curly" Emmerson and A. A. "Red" Emmerson and then Curly Emmerson and Red Emmerson therafter. Thoughts? TheSpacebook (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)