This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voodoo Doughnut article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The contents of the Voodoo Doughnut Recordings page were merged into Voodoo Doughnut on July 8, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Seeing as I have the supreme honor to be the first to discuss Voodoo Doughnut...no more Swahili lessons? Can this be true? SCPM08 ( talk) 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
70 employees with $600,000 / year revenue? If they paid 100% of revenue to employees = $8k each (hardly a living wage and none left over for rent, COGs, marketing etc). Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.140.67 ( talk) 02:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, conspiracy theorists are falsely accusing this place of some really messed up stuff, we might need to protect this page just in case so no one intentionally vandalizes it.
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Message deleted by user @ Graywalls: from his TALK page, titled "Voodoo Video": Hi there, I see we are getting at odds over the voodoo video, which I've restored with a secondary source, since you complained of it lacking one. I generally cn tag or source such items, rather than simply deleting them, which is what I had done on Voodoo — updated a pre-existing dead url. (I am not the editor who added it in the first place.) Most films made are Indie films, and can be a legitimate source of reference, particularly documentaries. This one was produced by Wrong Way Pictures in Portland, and is not a "personal video", as you classed it when deleting, since it premiered in Portland at the Hollywood Theatre, as I recall. You seem invested in removing it, though, and I'm just wondering why. I doubt that the Globe Trekker reference was spam, either, just the wrong article/url (here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Yqjar5_Js) AHampton ( talk) 21:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) AHampton ( talk) 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to omit the YouTube link removed here. There is no prejudice against further discussion about including this YouTube video mentioned by EllenCT.
Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.
I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city. On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC).RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). Graywalls ( talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that Voodoo Doughnut Recordings be merged here. The source article only has two sentences and a list, share common founders and it's a derivative of this page. I don't find the source page realistically merits its own article and the size of article here is small enough to easily accommodate the contents from there. Graywalls ( talk) 05:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a primary source loan application. Long ago, I've had things removed sourcing from stuff like this (business records, government records search, etc) when it was used as the only source of information. Why should this one remain? Graywalls ( talk) 06:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The current formatting of history section has attracted public relations editing and numerous undisclosed paid had occurred from freshly created single purpose accounts soon after the company name account showed up. I purged routine opening announcements, but left irregular ones in history. Comments? Graywalls ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, What are you talking about?
I realize we're probably splitting hairs with this bit, but how about we just ditch the unnecessary second sentence? The weight of the box is already stated in the first sentence and the "666" doesn't have anything to do with Voodoo. It comes from Christian/Satanic theology.
" But why aim for 666 pounds? “The current record is a little less than 333 pounds, so we just decided to double it to 666 pounds, which kind of goes along with our voodoo theme,” said Shannon. “It’s the mark of the ‘yeast’.” [1]. I don't know why you're debating over something that came right out of the source. And "Voodoo is waiting for official certification from Guinness World Records." [1] since it never officially made it on Guiness, I'm quite alright with just entirely omitting this biggest box of donut deal. Graywalls ( talk) 12:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
References
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's debatable whether it needs its own section, however it was in the national newspaper coverage. Constablequackers wishes to relocate the position. They moved it after it stayed in the current position for a considerable time, then they relocated it. After I stored status-quo, they put it back to their preferred position. I've restored status-quo at current position, because it happened in 2020 and it is proper in the chronological order. Graywalls ( talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Constablequackers:, Re:
Special:Diff/1014303717. unionization effort at apparently just one of their locations and a few sources from minor PNW labor publications doesn't merit such a high spot on this page.
, I put it there, because it's in chronological order while hoping to expand it given that it was covered in Al-Jazeera which is a source of international level audience and identified as reliable in
perennial list. You're the one who completely removed this source for some reason which I had to restore back. The Al-Jazeera
article isn't just a trivial mention, but considerable coverage on Voodoo's unionization. I really don't see why you're wishing to minimize coverage on it. Moreover, I argue for the inclusion of "It garnered attention for their employees' unconventional unionization approach in March 2020." in lede that you have removed. This is a brief summary from the Al-Jazeera's extensive coverage on Voodoo. In accordance with
WP:LEDE it is intentionally repetitive to cover key points.
Graywalls (
talk)
09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18573-voodoo-child.html Graywalls ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, extremely reliable sources indicate a location opened in Taiwan. There are only junk sources like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs that talk about closing and those are unacceptable as sources. Per WP:V, we follow, not lead. If it's not published in reliable sources, we go with what reliable sources say, not what you think the way it should be. Graywalls ( talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Are the information that has been very recently added WP:DUE? One of the sources going on about CEO's background was based on PRESS RELEASE from VooDoo itself and whether such a coverage is due merits a discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 17:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this is one thing that this place is notable for. An entire news article written specifically on this incident at VooDoo and having been included in the Reuters news is an indicator of notability of this coverage and I believe a sentence in the lede is reasonably proportionate and WP:DUE. The disputed content is:
Donut eating contests were a long-held tradition, but they were suspended following a choking death at the Denver location in 2017. [1]
Graywalls ( talk) 07:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
References
I removed it after I read through, but I see it's been in there for a long time. I still think this is WP:TRIVIA. Do other editors think this is inclusion worthy? Graywalls ( talk) 07:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, please provide quotation from a reliable source that credibly and DIRECLTY supports that the decor is in fact what Voodoo doughnuts is known for. I checked the cited sources and I'm not seeing this support. For comparison, Coca-Cola makes Sprite, but something that confirms they make Sprite doesn't suffice to support the bold claim in the lede "Coca Cola Company is known for making Sprite". Inference is not acceptable. Directly supportable by sources is a requirement under WP:V. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@
Constablequackers:,
Please stop leaving disruptive inappropriate comments in edit summary, such as Do you want to quibble over the description of the shops? Or is it *finally* time to put our years-long bicker fest over this silly Wikipedia page about a doughnut shop chain to rest? It looks like you've got plenty of other battles you're dealing with here that are more deserving of your... how shall we say, unique talents.
, as you did
here. It is not helping with the article.
I don't see how one magazine article's author having made their opinion comparison to "Goth Barbie’s living room," is lede worthy and should be selectively included into lede over the choking incident. I suggest the choking incident be included in lede, becuase it was not something that just happened as a day-to-day thing. The donut eating competition was a long standing tradition, and choking incident brought a long held tradition to an end which in my opinion is more mention worthy in lede than one magazine author having made a creative comparison. I am ok with the compromise of including being known for unusual doughtnuts and decor, and the long held tradition of doughtnut eating content that was brought to halt by a choking death condition to both being included. I disagree with including barbie goth thing, especially not in the lede. Graywalls ( talk) 16:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
overly specific descriptionsof each location is probably not appropriate for inclusion, particularly in the first sentence; e.g. "Voodoo Doughnut is a chain of doughnut shops originally founded in Portland, Oregon, that has various locations in the United States" seems more reflective of MOS:FIRST.As to the length of the lead generally, MOS:LEAD states in its lead,
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.WP:WEIGHT is discussed in MOS:LEADREL. According to MOS:INTRO, the goal is to
briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article, and I am curious about whether more article content can be developed about the doughnuts, based on article sources or after further research, because this may also help develop the lead. According to the MOS and NPOV policy, the article content and weight of reliable sources will help us determine how to develop the lead. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.So I don't think the ownership information needs a cite. WP:V may be why the McDonald's "bestselling licensed item" has a cite in its lead. I'll sometimes add cites to leads even though the cites are in the article, based on how frequently people remove content from a lead, although these are typically in contentious topic areas, not doughnut articles. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr:, just as with the choking concern, WP:DUE calls to consider the amount of prevalence in reliable sources. Local papers, as a matter of routine cover various eateries. I am finding the devotion of a good 1/3-1/2 of article space (not including the lede) to reception is excessive. This is a broader article on the company and I don't think store location by store location reviews by their respective local media outlets should be featured so prominently, especially of food review type contents. Graywalls ( talk) 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to have a separate accolades section, we ought to have separate criticism or controversy section to maintain NPOV by not giving preferential coverage to one aspect. "accolades" sections are very common in public relations oriented articles. Graywalls ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr:Why was the reference to Voodoo having illegally retaliated removed despite it was directly supportable in Portland Mercury? Graywalls ( talk) 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this removal [2] should be restored - it was removed per MOS:POPCULT in the edit summary, but that guideline seems to more concerned about unsourced lists of appearances; by contrast, this is sourced prose, and it seems to fit into the history narrative. There have been other sources that mentioned The Simpsons appearance, e.g. Eater [3]. Beccaynr ( talk) 07:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"shannon said"... according to "..." There are quite a few of those. Although they may come form secondary sources, such quotations are not secondary. the New Orleans section could be tweaked to emphasize on reliable sources' summary and analysis and cut out the so and so said format. Graywalls ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
They say stereotypical imagery is racially and culturally offensivethis is literally the summary in NOLA.COM's voice, which we should be using but without word-for-word copying or paraphrasing it too closely so it wouldn't be plagiarism. Graywalls ( talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The original text is as follows:
After a 2023 proposal to open a shop in the French Quarter of New Orleans, the Times-Picayune reported on reactions from New Orleans Voodoo community leaders to the doughnut imagery, including Divine Prince Ty Emmecca, who discussed the "Voodoo Doll" doughnut and past appropriations of the name by businesses, stating, "I don't think it's ever been quite this disrespectful." [1] Dianne Honoré said, "When people think of Voodoo they think of people of color and then you have these doughnuts that look like characters from Vaudeville or whatever. I can't find anything cute or interesting or right about it." [1] [2] In an interview with Willamette Week, the Times-Picayune reporter said, "Honestly, Voodoo Doughnut's main brand image is a straight up black face golliwog doll, supposedly representing a 'voodoo doll.' I'm not on the 'woke' spectrum myself (i.e., I'm moderate on the Culture War issues), but even I can readily see that images they use would be taken by most Black Americans as racially offensive." [2]
This was replaced with:
After a 2023 proposal to open a shop in the French Quarter of New Orleans, it faced opposition from voodoo practitioners finding the stereotype racially and culturally offensive. [1]
The two news sources include commentary from local religious community leaders, not 'voodoo practitioners' with a small 'v' - this is one of the aspects that seems to get lost when context is removed, and when specific contentious content is summarized instead of attributed and quoted. Honoré is quoted in both the Times Picayune and Willamette Week, which seems to further support the weight of that quote.
The Times-Picayune reporter offers commentary to Willamette Week about the racial imagery, and this statement to the non-local (to New Orleans) news outlet seems to be secondary commentary with weight similar to other quoted commentary from independent, reliable, secondary sources. In the Times-Picayune coverage, the quoted speakers are discussing the doughnuts, similar to other quotes from independent and reliable sources, and seem better to include as quotes, particularly when attempting to summarize what is being said has the potential to distort who they are and what was said about the doughnuts - that there is secondary coverage and context supports the weight for inclusion, but does not mean we should independently interpret what is said, or closely paraphrase gloss based on the entire news source to suggest that this is what was said about the doughnuts.
And this not the only coverage available about Voodoo Doughnut and this type of criticism - I looked into a statement made by co-founder Shannon in an interview source in the article [3]; while I was trying to make sense of the coverage about the brand, and potentially whether there is another section that could be developed, various removals started happening, and I have had some on- and off-wiki things to attend to, so I have been distracted from following up on all of that. As I noted above, there is not a lot of guidance about the layout for these types of articles, and I have been reviewing many sources and considering WP:STRUCTURE as I have been working to develop the article. In the meantime, I think for doughnut-specific reception, there are two independent, reliable, secondary sources, and substantial reasons to include the context, attribution, and quotes. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
References
During a scene of Sam in the hotel room there is clearly a box of Voodoo donuts on the table with his computer. “Like a virgin” is the episode name and it’s about 2/3rds through the episode. It aired in February of 2011. 2600:1702:51C0:A410:4DC3:8E3C:244A:67DA ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Voodoo Doughnut article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | The contents of the Voodoo Doughnut Recordings page were merged into Voodoo Doughnut on July 8, 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
Seeing as I have the supreme honor to be the first to discuss Voodoo Doughnut...no more Swahili lessons? Can this be true? SCPM08 ( talk) 08:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
70 employees with $600,000 / year revenue? If they paid 100% of revenue to employees = $8k each (hardly a living wage and none left over for rent, COGs, marketing etc). Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.140.67 ( talk) 02:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently, conspiracy theorists are falsely accusing this place of some really messed up stuff, we might need to protect this page just in case so no one intentionally vandalizes it.
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Message deleted by user @ Graywalls: from his TALK page, titled "Voodoo Video": Hi there, I see we are getting at odds over the voodoo video, which I've restored with a secondary source, since you complained of it lacking one. I generally cn tag or source such items, rather than simply deleting them, which is what I had done on Voodoo — updated a pre-existing dead url. (I am not the editor who added it in the first place.) Most films made are Indie films, and can be a legitimate source of reference, particularly documentaries. This one was produced by Wrong Way Pictures in Portland, and is not a "personal video", as you classed it when deleting, since it premiered in Portland at the Hollywood Theatre, as I recall. You seem invested in removing it, though, and I'm just wondering why. I doubt that the Globe Trekker reference was spam, either, just the wrong article/url (here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Yqjar5_Js) AHampton ( talk) 21:24, 2 April 2019 (UTC) AHampton ( talk) 22:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is to omit the YouTube link removed here. There is no prejudice against further discussion about including this YouTube video mentioned by EllenCT.
Questions on inclusion of self published contents and slip streaming things into existing contents.
I'm still foggy after reading through WP:YT and WP:ELNO given a line like. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article". Please see "Voodoo doc film" section in this talk page. Initially, I removed a YouTube video from the article here. The video was made by three individuals and hosted on one of the individual creators' personal YouTube. The subject of video is about the article's company. Anyone with a camcorder, some skills and editing can call themselves a director. So if someone, or a group of indie directors make a short video about a company, when would it be generally acceptable to be inserted? At the time I removed it, there was no context of why it should have been there. It was restored later which referenced a source that mentioned the video (one line) in an announcement in another city that a location of VooDoo was opening in that city. On Wikipedia, it's too common to see something like "notable people such as A, B, C, D, E..." only to see F, G, H and so on getting added onto it. I've even come across people who go and insert certain people/companies as examples into many articles. Since YouTube carries monetizing potential, it's especially a concern that motivates people to find a way to insert something into a high view count articles. RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC).RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC). RfC relisted by Cunard ( talk) at 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC). Graywalls ( talk) 19:26, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that Voodoo Doughnut Recordings be merged here. The source article only has two sentences and a list, share common founders and it's a derivative of this page. I don't find the source page realistically merits its own article and the size of article here is small enough to easily accommodate the contents from there. Graywalls ( talk) 05:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It's a primary source loan application. Long ago, I've had things removed sourcing from stuff like this (business records, government records search, etc) when it was used as the only source of information. Why should this one remain? Graywalls ( talk) 06:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The current formatting of history section has attracted public relations editing and numerous undisclosed paid had occurred from freshly created single purpose accounts soon after the company name account showed up. I purged routine opening announcements, but left irregular ones in history. Comments? Graywalls ( talk) 06:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, What are you talking about?
I realize we're probably splitting hairs with this bit, but how about we just ditch the unnecessary second sentence? The weight of the box is already stated in the first sentence and the "666" doesn't have anything to do with Voodoo. It comes from Christian/Satanic theology.
" But why aim for 666 pounds? “The current record is a little less than 333 pounds, so we just decided to double it to 666 pounds, which kind of goes along with our voodoo theme,” said Shannon. “It’s the mark of the ‘yeast’.” [1]. I don't know why you're debating over something that came right out of the source. And "Voodoo is waiting for official certification from Guinness World Records." [1] since it never officially made it on Guiness, I'm quite alright with just entirely omitting this biggest box of donut deal. Graywalls ( talk) 12:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
References
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 18:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's debatable whether it needs its own section, however it was in the national newspaper coverage. Constablequackers wishes to relocate the position. They moved it after it stayed in the current position for a considerable time, then they relocated it. After I stored status-quo, they put it back to their preferred position. I've restored status-quo at current position, because it happened in 2020 and it is proper in the chronological order. Graywalls ( talk) 09:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
@
Constablequackers:, Re:
Special:Diff/1014303717. unionization effort at apparently just one of their locations and a few sources from minor PNW labor publications doesn't merit such a high spot on this page.
, I put it there, because it's in chronological order while hoping to expand it given that it was covered in Al-Jazeera which is a source of international level audience and identified as reliable in
perennial list. You're the one who completely removed this source for some reason which I had to restore back. The Al-Jazeera
article isn't just a trivial mention, but considerable coverage on Voodoo's unionization. I really don't see why you're wishing to minimize coverage on it. Moreover, I argue for the inclusion of "It garnered attention for their employees' unconventional unionization approach in March 2020." in lede that you have removed. This is a brief summary from the Al-Jazeera's extensive coverage on Voodoo. In accordance with
WP:LEDE it is intentionally repetitive to cover key points.
Graywalls (
talk)
09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18573-voodoo-child.html Graywalls ( talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, extremely reliable sources indicate a location opened in Taiwan. There are only junk sources like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs that talk about closing and those are unacceptable as sources. Per WP:V, we follow, not lead. If it's not published in reliable sources, we go with what reliable sources say, not what you think the way it should be. Graywalls ( talk) 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Are the information that has been very recently added WP:DUE? One of the sources going on about CEO's background was based on PRESS RELEASE from VooDoo itself and whether such a coverage is due merits a discussion. Graywalls ( talk) 17:54, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I believe that this is one thing that this place is notable for. An entire news article written specifically on this incident at VooDoo and having been included in the Reuters news is an indicator of notability of this coverage and I believe a sentence in the lede is reasonably proportionate and WP:DUE. The disputed content is:
Donut eating contests were a long-held tradition, but they were suspended following a choking death at the Denver location in 2017. [1]
Graywalls ( talk) 07:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
References
I removed it after I read through, but I see it's been in there for a long time. I still think this is WP:TRIVIA. Do other editors think this is inclusion worthy? Graywalls ( talk) 07:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
@ Constablequackers:, please provide quotation from a reliable source that credibly and DIRECLTY supports that the decor is in fact what Voodoo doughnuts is known for. I checked the cited sources and I'm not seeing this support. For comparison, Coca-Cola makes Sprite, but something that confirms they make Sprite doesn't suffice to support the bold claim in the lede "Coca Cola Company is known for making Sprite". Inference is not acceptable. Directly supportable by sources is a requirement under WP:V. Graywalls ( talk) 18:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
--- Another Believer ( Talk) 01:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@
Constablequackers:,
Please stop leaving disruptive inappropriate comments in edit summary, such as Do you want to quibble over the description of the shops? Or is it *finally* time to put our years-long bicker fest over this silly Wikipedia page about a doughnut shop chain to rest? It looks like you've got plenty of other battles you're dealing with here that are more deserving of your... how shall we say, unique talents.
, as you did
here. It is not helping with the article.
I don't see how one magazine article's author having made their opinion comparison to "Goth Barbie’s living room," is lede worthy and should be selectively included into lede over the choking incident. I suggest the choking incident be included in lede, becuase it was not something that just happened as a day-to-day thing. The donut eating competition was a long standing tradition, and choking incident brought a long held tradition to an end which in my opinion is more mention worthy in lede than one magazine author having made a creative comparison. I am ok with the compromise of including being known for unusual doughtnuts and decor, and the long held tradition of doughtnut eating content that was brought to halt by a choking death condition to both being included. I disagree with including barbie goth thing, especially not in the lede. Graywalls ( talk) 16:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
overly specific descriptionsof each location is probably not appropriate for inclusion, particularly in the first sentence; e.g. "Voodoo Doughnut is a chain of doughnut shops originally founded in Portland, Oregon, that has various locations in the United States" seems more reflective of MOS:FIRST.As to the length of the lead generally, MOS:LEAD states in its lead,
The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.WP:WEIGHT is discussed in MOS:LEADREL. According to MOS:INTRO, the goal is to
briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article, and I am curious about whether more article content can be developed about the doughnuts, based on article sources or after further research, because this may also help develop the lead. According to the MOS and NPOV policy, the article content and weight of reliable sources will help us determine how to develop the lead. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
all quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports it.So I don't think the ownership information needs a cite. WP:V may be why the McDonald's "bestselling licensed item" has a cite in its lead. I'll sometimes add cites to leads even though the cites are in the article, based on how frequently people remove content from a lead, although these are typically in contentious topic areas, not doughnut articles. Beccaynr ( talk) 16:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr:, just as with the choking concern, WP:DUE calls to consider the amount of prevalence in reliable sources. Local papers, as a matter of routine cover various eateries. I am finding the devotion of a good 1/3-1/2 of article space (not including the lede) to reception is excessive. This is a broader article on the company and I don't think store location by store location reviews by their respective local media outlets should be featured so prominently, especially of food review type contents. Graywalls ( talk) 10:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, if we're going to have a separate accolades section, we ought to have separate criticism or controversy section to maintain NPOV by not giving preferential coverage to one aspect. "accolades" sections are very common in public relations oriented articles. Graywalls ( talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@ Beccaynr:Why was the reference to Voodoo having illegally retaliated removed despite it was directly supportable in Portland Mercury? Graywalls ( talk) 06:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this removal [2] should be restored - it was removed per MOS:POPCULT in the edit summary, but that guideline seems to more concerned about unsourced lists of appearances; by contrast, this is sourced prose, and it seems to fit into the history narrative. There have been other sources that mentioned The Simpsons appearance, e.g. Eater [3]. Beccaynr ( talk) 07:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
"shannon said"... according to "..." There are quite a few of those. Although they may come form secondary sources, such quotations are not secondary. the New Orleans section could be tweaked to emphasize on reliable sources' summary and analysis and cut out the so and so said format. Graywalls ( talk) 16:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
They say stereotypical imagery is racially and culturally offensivethis is literally the summary in NOLA.COM's voice, which we should be using but without word-for-word copying or paraphrasing it too closely so it wouldn't be plagiarism. Graywalls ( talk) 21:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The original text is as follows:
After a 2023 proposal to open a shop in the French Quarter of New Orleans, the Times-Picayune reported on reactions from New Orleans Voodoo community leaders to the doughnut imagery, including Divine Prince Ty Emmecca, who discussed the "Voodoo Doll" doughnut and past appropriations of the name by businesses, stating, "I don't think it's ever been quite this disrespectful." [1] Dianne Honoré said, "When people think of Voodoo they think of people of color and then you have these doughnuts that look like characters from Vaudeville or whatever. I can't find anything cute or interesting or right about it." [1] [2] In an interview with Willamette Week, the Times-Picayune reporter said, "Honestly, Voodoo Doughnut's main brand image is a straight up black face golliwog doll, supposedly representing a 'voodoo doll.' I'm not on the 'woke' spectrum myself (i.e., I'm moderate on the Culture War issues), but even I can readily see that images they use would be taken by most Black Americans as racially offensive." [2]
This was replaced with:
After a 2023 proposal to open a shop in the French Quarter of New Orleans, it faced opposition from voodoo practitioners finding the stereotype racially and culturally offensive. [1]
The two news sources include commentary from local religious community leaders, not 'voodoo practitioners' with a small 'v' - this is one of the aspects that seems to get lost when context is removed, and when specific contentious content is summarized instead of attributed and quoted. Honoré is quoted in both the Times Picayune and Willamette Week, which seems to further support the weight of that quote.
The Times-Picayune reporter offers commentary to Willamette Week about the racial imagery, and this statement to the non-local (to New Orleans) news outlet seems to be secondary commentary with weight similar to other quoted commentary from independent, reliable, secondary sources. In the Times-Picayune coverage, the quoted speakers are discussing the doughnuts, similar to other quotes from independent and reliable sources, and seem better to include as quotes, particularly when attempting to summarize what is being said has the potential to distort who they are and what was said about the doughnuts - that there is secondary coverage and context supports the weight for inclusion, but does not mean we should independently interpret what is said, or closely paraphrase gloss based on the entire news source to suggest that this is what was said about the doughnuts.
And this not the only coverage available about Voodoo Doughnut and this type of criticism - I looked into a statement made by co-founder Shannon in an interview source in the article [3]; while I was trying to make sense of the coverage about the brand, and potentially whether there is another section that could be developed, various removals started happening, and I have had some on- and off-wiki things to attend to, so I have been distracted from following up on all of that. As I noted above, there is not a lot of guidance about the layout for these types of articles, and I have been reviewing many sources and considering WP:STRUCTURE as I have been working to develop the article. In the meantime, I think for doughnut-specific reception, there are two independent, reliable, secondary sources, and substantial reasons to include the context, attribution, and quotes. Beccaynr ( talk) 22:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
References
During a scene of Sam in the hotel room there is clearly a box of Voodoo donuts on the table with his computer. “Like a virgin” is the episode name and it’s about 2/3rds through the episode. It aired in February of 2011. 2600:1702:51C0:A410:4DC3:8E3C:244A:67DA ( talk) 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)