This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed a sentence at the end that expressed opinion about the quality of Charles Shaw wine without attributing it to a notable source. Also I believe the statement about Fred Franzia having no business relationship to Franzia wines was misleading. According to my research he was formally a part of Franzia Brothers Wines before it was sold to Coca-Cola. He then left and started Bronco Wines. Frazia Brothers became simply Franzia after it was bought from Cocoa-Cola by the Wine Group. I fixed the statement to reflect this info. -- Cab88 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Finrod61 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Content and link added.
I think the artice reads like an advertisement for the wine. The first paragraph (ie Charles Shaw is an example of the recent trend of economy-minded wine drinkers seeking the greatest value. In particular the brand stands out not only for the low cost, but also for the respectable packaging and semi-frequent high ratings at wine tasting events). Also the ownership section does not read like an unbiased, authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.104.144 ( talk) 09:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's no longer trader joe's only. They sell this wine at kroger here in Atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.233.241 ( talk) 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a feature on the wine almost ten years ago, just after I first heard about it? MMetro ( talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is action being organized among nonprofits and bloggers to get consumers to demand Trader Joe's stores take Charles Shaw wine (made by Bronco Wine Company) off the shelves until all of its grape suppliers (particularly one that is known to have broken California laws about working in the heat--Bronco subsidiary West Coast Grape Farming) are complying in practice to every last requirement of California law about working in the heat, and preferably going beyond that out of respect for the spirit of the law.
I would like to cover this consumer action on the Charles Shaw page as a part of the brand's history, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase and format it.
I could use some help.
Thank you very much, Kitkatwp ( talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)KitKatWP
Please, no original research. Cite newspapers. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Newspaper citation: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/973298.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.193.56 ( talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Do they plan on protesting the employment of illegal aliens? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.175.221.121 (
talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence seems misleading:
Virtually every item, whether associated with a "three-tier system" or not, costs less money near where it's produced. It seems to me like it's misleading to say that this price discrepency is "due to the three-tier system", rather than, say, transportation costs. Could this be either explained better if it's correct, or corrected if not? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.194 ( talk) 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd just like to know where I can buy "$2.00 Buck Chuck" here in Sarasota. We bring it down from Ohio when we drive up, but I.d like to get it here.§≤≥≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.174.142 ( talk) 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Charles Shaw wines are affectionately known as "Two Buck Chuck." Due to transportation costs and other factors, in other states the price can go up to around $4. As such, the wine is often referred to as "Three Buck Chuck" or "Four Buck Chuck" relative to the price. The price of the wine, however, does not reflect its quality. A Napa brand nominally, Charles Shaw sells for such a relatively low price because of the wine market's oversupply and the brand's economies of scale.
[1]
Currently there is a sentence and citation from
Snopes in the article concerning the basis for Charles Shaw's low cost. Apparently this is controversial, so let me quote a staple of
WP:V: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." In this case, the claim is that Snopes is somehow an unreliable source that has gotten the facts wrong on Charles Shaw, but so far I see no citations to back up the claim that Snopes is wrong, or even anything detailing an alternate reason as to why the price is so low. In the absence of either of these the Snopes article wins out. --
Y|yukichigai (
ramble
argue
check) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, reverting another good faith editor's edit and identifying it as vandalism is very poor form. I would urge caution and civility. Second, it is fair to question the reliability of any source. You don't have to "prove a negative" in doing this. Looking at the Snopes article, there are some references cited but they all seem to be at least 5 years old. I would be interested in seeing a link to the CNN business article that Dr. Margi referenced with the Franzia interview to see if this information is still accurate. I've moved the disputed text to the talk page so that we can discuss this and see what kind of consensus can emerge. At the very least if the text is re-inserted it should be clearly "branded" in the article as "Back in 2003, Snopes.com suggested that Charles Shaw was sold for so low of a price because....". We should make clear that these are the 5 year old conclusions of an internet urban legends site rather than that of a more recent newspaper report, industry magazine or wine book. Agne Cheese/ Wine 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the article Drmargi was discussing may be this one: Two Buck Chuck takes a bite out of Napa. I was quite surprised to see the term 2 buck chuck not in the article. I don't think all of that paragraph was disputed and should be returned. Rmhermen ( talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Charles Shaw wine is widely known as "Two Buck Chuck", so I agree the absence of that term in this article is disturbing. The paragraph containing that term, along with the reference to snopes.com, should be restored. I find the claim that snopes.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source because it "known to be wrong, incomplete, or inaccurate", is ridiculous. The same can be said of, say, Fox News or IMDB, which are often cited as a reliable sources (and IMDB probably has more errors than snopes, IMO). All publications make mistakes. If the snopes article in question contains its own reliable sources, then snopes is fair to cite here, although it would be preferable to dig up those other sources cited by snopes and cite them here instead. I also find the argument about outdated sources to be irrelevant. The term "Two Buck Chuck" has existed for, what, over a decade now? It makes sense that sources referencing that term should also be that old. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I now see why the concerns about the term "Two Buck", etc. It's been removed from the article. I've restored the text that is not in question. It was only the last statement, about pricing, that was in dispute. Drmargi ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion! I removed the entire paragraph because, outside of the snopes reference, it was completely unreferenced. I didn't realize it was only the one line that was being disputed. Also, I will say that Yukichigai comprised wording and referencing seems fine. Agne Cheese/ Wine 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire section is a POV press release. It needs to be rewritten, unless Wikipedia is the proper place for press releases. If that doesn't happen, it needs the bee deleted. The *facts* surrounding the death of the farm worker are OK, but the rest in nothing more than labor union PR bullet points that reference some California law that indirectly relates to the complaint, but not to any news sources about the complaint. Completely POV. I'm going to give it a few days and then delete it. Proxy User ( talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the quotation marks are for in this section of the article. They seem to be a bit misplaced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.165.222.168 (
talk) 04:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This section has nothing to do with Charles Shaw wine and is related to Bronco Wine Company instead. I am going to remove this section since it is already in the Bronco Wine Company article. 74.139.177.80 ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
‘Chuck’ is a common slang word for vomit in many English countries ... is this similar in the US ? This makes the in store advert rather amusing: Two Buck Chuck (Two Buck Vomit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've removed a sentence at the end that expressed opinion about the quality of Charles Shaw wine without attributing it to a notable source. Also I believe the statement about Fred Franzia having no business relationship to Franzia wines was misleading. According to my research he was formally a part of Franzia Brothers Wines before it was sold to Coca-Cola. He then left and started Bronco Wines. Frazia Brothers became simply Franzia after it was bought from Cocoa-Cola by the Wine Group. I fixed the statement to reflect this info. -- Cab88 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Finrod61 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Content and link added.
I think the artice reads like an advertisement for the wine. The first paragraph (ie Charles Shaw is an example of the recent trend of economy-minded wine drinkers seeking the greatest value. In particular the brand stands out not only for the low cost, but also for the respectable packaging and semi-frequent high ratings at wine tasting events). Also the ownership section does not read like an unbiased, authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.104.144 ( talk) 09:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It's no longer trader joe's only. They sell this wine at kroger here in Atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.233.241 ( talk) 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't there a feature on the wine almost ten years ago, just after I first heard about it? MMetro ( talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is action being organized among nonprofits and bloggers to get consumers to demand Trader Joe's stores take Charles Shaw wine (made by Bronco Wine Company) off the shelves until all of its grape suppliers (particularly one that is known to have broken California laws about working in the heat--Bronco subsidiary West Coast Grape Farming) are complying in practice to every last requirement of California law about working in the heat, and preferably going beyond that out of respect for the spirit of the law.
I would like to cover this consumer action on the Charles Shaw page as a part of the brand's history, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase and format it.
I could use some help.
Thank you very much, Kitkatwp ( talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)KitKatWP
Please, no original research. Cite newspapers. Kingturtle ( talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Newspaper citation: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/973298.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.193.56 ( talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Do they plan on protesting the employment of illegal aliens? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.175.221.121 (
talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The following sentence seems misleading:
Virtually every item, whether associated with a "three-tier system" or not, costs less money near where it's produced. It seems to me like it's misleading to say that this price discrepency is "due to the three-tier system", rather than, say, transportation costs. Could this be either explained better if it's correct, or corrected if not? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.194 ( talk) 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'd just like to know where I can buy "$2.00 Buck Chuck" here in Sarasota. We bring it down from Ohio when we drive up, but I.d like to get it here.§≤≥≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.174.142 ( talk) 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Charles Shaw wines are affectionately known as "Two Buck Chuck." Due to transportation costs and other factors, in other states the price can go up to around $4. As such, the wine is often referred to as "Three Buck Chuck" or "Four Buck Chuck" relative to the price. The price of the wine, however, does not reflect its quality. A Napa brand nominally, Charles Shaw sells for such a relatively low price because of the wine market's oversupply and the brand's economies of scale.
[1]
Currently there is a sentence and citation from
Snopes in the article concerning the basis for Charles Shaw's low cost. Apparently this is controversial, so let me quote a staple of
WP:V: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." In this case, the claim is that Snopes is somehow an unreliable source that has gotten the facts wrong on Charles Shaw, but so far I see no citations to back up the claim that Snopes is wrong, or even anything detailing an alternate reason as to why the price is so low. In the absence of either of these the Snopes article wins out. --
Y|yukichigai (
ramble
argue
check) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
First off, reverting another good faith editor's edit and identifying it as vandalism is very poor form. I would urge caution and civility. Second, it is fair to question the reliability of any source. You don't have to "prove a negative" in doing this. Looking at the Snopes article, there are some references cited but they all seem to be at least 5 years old. I would be interested in seeing a link to the CNN business article that Dr. Margi referenced with the Franzia interview to see if this information is still accurate. I've moved the disputed text to the talk page so that we can discuss this and see what kind of consensus can emerge. At the very least if the text is re-inserted it should be clearly "branded" in the article as "Back in 2003, Snopes.com suggested that Charles Shaw was sold for so low of a price because....". We should make clear that these are the 5 year old conclusions of an internet urban legends site rather than that of a more recent newspaper report, industry magazine or wine book. Agne Cheese/ Wine 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I think the article Drmargi was discussing may be this one: Two Buck Chuck takes a bite out of Napa. I was quite surprised to see the term 2 buck chuck not in the article. I don't think all of that paragraph was disputed and should be returned. Rmhermen ( talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Charles Shaw wine is widely known as "Two Buck Chuck", so I agree the absence of that term in this article is disturbing. The paragraph containing that term, along with the reference to snopes.com, should be restored. I find the claim that snopes.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source because it "known to be wrong, incomplete, or inaccurate", is ridiculous. The same can be said of, say, Fox News or IMDB, which are often cited as a reliable sources (and IMDB probably has more errors than snopes, IMO). All publications make mistakes. If the snopes article in question contains its own reliable sources, then snopes is fair to cite here, although it would be preferable to dig up those other sources cited by snopes and cite them here instead. I also find the argument about outdated sources to be irrelevant. The term "Two Buck Chuck" has existed for, what, over a decade now? It makes sense that sources referencing that term should also be that old. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I now see why the concerns about the term "Two Buck", etc. It's been removed from the article. I've restored the text that is not in question. It was only the last statement, about pricing, that was in dispute. Drmargi ( talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the confusion! I removed the entire paragraph because, outside of the snopes reference, it was completely unreferenced. I didn't realize it was only the one line that was being disputed. Also, I will say that Yukichigai comprised wording and referencing seems fine. Agne Cheese/ Wine 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire section is a POV press release. It needs to be rewritten, unless Wikipedia is the proper place for press releases. If that doesn't happen, it needs the bee deleted. The *facts* surrounding the death of the farm worker are OK, but the rest in nothing more than labor union PR bullet points that reference some California law that indirectly relates to the complaint, but not to any news sources about the complaint. Completely POV. I'm going to give it a few days and then delete it. Proxy User ( talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the quotation marks are for in this section of the article. They seem to be a bit misplaced. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.165.222.168 (
talk) 04:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
This section has nothing to do with Charles Shaw wine and is related to Bronco Wine Company instead. I am going to remove this section since it is already in the Bronco Wine Company article. 74.139.177.80 ( talk) 15:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
‘Chuck’ is a common slang word for vomit in many English countries ... is this similar in the US ? This makes the in store advert rather amusing: Two Buck Chuck (Two Buck Vomit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 ( talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)