Talk:Aunt Jemima/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Some thoughts on article going forward

I think that the character Aunt Jemima should be spun-off into a separate article, and that this article should be renamed to the brand’s current title and focus on the brand history itself. SecretName101 (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Except that idea was pretty much buried in the last move request one month ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

"The original version of the pancake mix for the brand was developed in 1888–1889 by the company’s short-lived namesake" Not true and contradicted by the rest of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.213.254 (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections Pearl Milling Company be split into a separate page called Pearl Milling Company . The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page. BigRed606 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

As mentioned above in previous discussions I proposed the we split and create a new article separate from the current article, with the name Pearl Milling Company. I think having Aunt Jemima as the pages title while having the infobox say “Pearl Milling Company”, is a bit confusing. I also believe that there is enough useful information for Pearl Milling Company to have its own article. BigRed606 (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@BigRed606 Disagree; if anything was to be split off, the section in this article titled "Character of Aunt Jemima" should as it would work best; although I am against any splitting of the article as i feel it unnecessarily divorces the current brand from its history and both articles would frequently refer to each other. IMO, the article should be moved to "Pearl Milling Company" with "Aunt Jemima" redirecting to this article or the aforementioned section. — Sir-Douglas (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is (at least primarily) about the Aunt Jemima brand, not the Pearl Milling Company brand. As far as I can tell, the Pearl Milling Company brand is not nearly as notable as the Aunt Jemima brand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Is Pearl Milling Company notable, if not for the connection to the former brand? Is there notable coverage of the company, outside of the context of formerly being Aunt Jemima? It it's all in that context, it makes sense to stay here. I do wonder why we aren't updating the title to the new brand name, and just leaving all the stuff about "Aunt Jemima" in history. The brand isn't Aunt Jemima anymore, but the continuity of the brand exists, with PMC. When The Chicks changed their name, but left the band the continuity the same, it was changed. When the Washington Redskins were changed their name, but left the team continuity the same, it changed. IDK why we are using the name of a brand that doesn't exist anymore. Pearl Milling Company (previously known as "Aunt Jemima)" is all we would need in the lede to establish that for anyone who was confused. FrederalBacon (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

We've had two formal RM discussions that have both agreed that the topic of the article is the now-defunct Aunt Jemima brand, not the Pearl Milling Company brand, which – as you note – is much less notable (and doesn't really seem independently notable). I personally see nothing wrong with having an article about a former brand even though the brand's owner has rebranded their current products. Wikipedia covers history, without presuming that newer things take precedence over older ones. See, for example, WP:DEFUNCT. I also see brand names as more of a transient phenomenon than groups of people such as bands or sports teams. A company can even have more than one brand name in the market for similar products at the same time (Procter & Gamble is a company especially known for doing that) or can use the same brand name on substantially different products. The Aunt Jemima brand has much more historical importance than the Pearl Milling Company brand. I agree that the article should mention that Pepsico has done a rebranding – i.e., it wants the buyers of their previous Aunt Jemima products to start buying their Pearl Milling Company products, but this article is not here to talk about their new products; it is here to talk about the historic brand. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:DEFUNCT is something you see in deletion discussion, not renaming. WP:COMMONNAME states "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". It is worth pointing out that this article, written this year ONLY refers to it as PMC, with no mention of Aunt Jemima at all, while specifically mentioning the rebranding. This isn't about "which one is more important historically", that's subjective, it's "Are we reflecting the brand name change, per policy, as established by reliable sources?" And clearly we are not. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The same principles apply whether there is a deletion discussion or some other matter involving topics discussed on Wikipedia – what matters is what is notable, regardless of whether that is a matter of historical importance or current status. Please see my remarks below about the source identified in the above remark. Regarding name changes, most sources, including those published after the rebranding, and especially those that discuss the topic in depth, have continued to highlight the former Jemima brand. There seems to be relatively little to say about the new brand other than that it is the company's current substitute for the prior one. The new brand is already mentioned in the article (including in the first paragraph of the lead section). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Split completed, company, brand, and trademarks only. Note that each article uses a Main article template in an appropriate subsection. Navigation should be easy.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Original radio advertisement voice for Aunt Jemima

FloridaArmy and I recently finished putting together an article on 1920s and 30s radio show actress Artie Belle McGinty. One of the interesting things noted about her in the sources, such as here, is that she was the original voice for Aunt Jemima in the radio advertisements of the brand that began in 1927. Is this information something that should be added somewhere in this article? Silverseren^C 22:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Good find! I've added a sentence with alink to her main article under Performers.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this page about?

Collapsed per NOTFORUM.     (uncollapsed upon request)

RFC on Page name I'm not sure why this page is still referred to as "Aunt Jemima", but then I saw the two page move requests up top and understand why. The argument for before was WP:COMMONNAME but I think this doesn't meet that, Aunt Jemima is not a common name. But it fails WP:NAMECHANGES at this point. This is not a self published name change, there are plenty of reliable sources verifying the branding name change. Even the Common Name part says "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." So, should this stay Aunt Jemima, or should this go the way of The Chicks, Lady A, Ben's Original, and Washington Commanders, and let the new name reflect on this page? FrederalBacon (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Procedural objection: Without getting into the substance of the reasons for preferring one title or another, this seems like basically just a repeated WP:Requested move request for this article's title to be changed. An RM is an RFC; there is no need to seek another path to accomplish the renaming of an article, so I think submitting this as an RFC instead of an RM is not proper. It's just WP:Forum shopping. Also, we've already had two RMs within about the last year proposing the same renaming for this article, so I would personally suggest not to repeat the attempt to make the same name change proposal again at this time. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC) The last name change request was 7 months ago, the last one was JUST OVER a year ago, not within a year, and reliable sources, as detailed to you above, aren't using Aunt Jemimah anymore, they're using PMC. Also, I am NOT requesting a move, I am generating discussion. There is a big difference. An RFC also puts this out more wide to the community. FrederalBacon (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC) I said "about the last year", not exactly within the last year, and in fact the first of those two RMs was closed on 19 July 2021, so the proposal remained open for discussion within the last year, and I still think this is forum shopping. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Wrong method, procedural close. This is a requested move, and should be handled as that, not an RfC. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC) I am not asking for a move. I am asking a question, generally, about what the title of the article should be. I will not be, nor do I want, anyone to move this as a result of this discussion alone. It's just a question as to which WIKI policy we should be applying here: Common Name or Name Change? FrederalBacon (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Comment I am not requesting a move. Page move can be contentious because there's 1. A deadline, and 2. An actual change to disagree about. This is a conversation, in general, about Wiki policy as it applies to this page. There is no proposed move. This is not meant to be contentious. It's an open discussion as to which, or which of several, naming policies apply here. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2022 (UTC) Even though you suggest that this is not a RM, this is a RM but without the result of moving or not the page, which leads to nothing if "Aunt Jemima" results to be the common name. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC) The consensus before was that it didn't need to be moved. Why in the world would I open a page move request without trying to see if consensus, or the situation, has changed first? Also, people up top have discussed splitting, something that could be done as a result of this discussion, if consensus wants it, that isn't "Nothing" and isn't a page move either. Also, it looks up above that people were talking about this being the character page, and not the brand page, since it was formed, so if it's a character page, and not a brand page, I'm not sure why PMC is mentioned on here at all, and I'm not sure why PMC is listed as an "Owner" of the character, since I'm fairly certain the character has absolutely nothing to do with the new PMC. There is more discussion here than just "Move it or not". This page looks like it's being two pages at once (an article about AJ the Brand, and an article about AJ the character), and it doesn't make sense. That's why I didn't request a page move, I did an RFC. FrederalBacon (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC) You opened an RFC (which normally last 30 days) to see if there is a possibility to move the page (yes, you want this page to be moved, this is why you cited The Chicks, Lady A, Ben's Original, and Washington Commanders as examples). I can summarize you those 30 to 60 days: People will argue that Aunt Jemima is still being the common name of the brand. Even though this article is about the pancake brand and character, people will also be opposed to split the pages because PMC is a non-notable brand without the Aunt Jemima character. The fact that Uncle Ben's was moved does not mean this article is to be renamed or that there should be an action here (I can't see how it was concluded that "Ben's Original" is the common name for that brand either). (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC) This article is trying to be about two things. If this article is about the company There are clearly enough sources to indicate the name change, and per WP:NAMECHANGES, it should be changed. If this is about the character, as the vast majority of the article is, then most mentions of the modern PMC, especially listed as a "Owner" of the character, since the new PMC has nothing to do with the character, should be removed, and per WP:COMMONNAME it should stay. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC) WP:NAMECHANGE is about usernames. If you meant WP:TITLECHANGES, sources still calling this brand Aunt Jemima just to provide some context about PMC and therefore WP:COMMONAME is still applying. (CC) Tbhotch™ 21:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC) This one doesn't Mentions Pearl, mentions the transition, no mention of Aunt Jemima, at all. This one calls it Pearl. Mentions AJ, but only as its former name. They address it as PMC in the opening of the article, not AJ. Also, I forgot a letter. WP:NAMECHANGE is username WP:NAMECHANGES is about titles. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2022 (UTC) "If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match" I don't think you're going to find a whole lot of people referring to the Pearl Milling Company as Aunt Jemima, except perhaps as disambiguation, right next to each other. As a matter of fact, both of those articles I linked to were from YOUR link, where you claim people are referring to it as Aunt Jemima. They are clearly not, except perhaps together, as I said. FrederalBacon (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC) That first source you just referenced, in Black Enterprise, is a puff piece about a PepsiCo goodwill campaign, not about the Pearl Milling Company brand. Pearl Milling Company is mentioned, but only in the last sentence, in the context of "leveraging an award-winning Black woman-owned agency for the rebranding strategy". What "rebranding strategy", you might ask? Well, obviously the one to try to transition away from the more notable name, which wasn't included in the article out of politeness but is hinted at in the need for the company to conduct a big "Racial Equality Journey" campaign with "a more than $570 million investment" to improve its reputation. The second source, on Yahoo, is explicitly a discussion of how the company is trying to do its rebranding transition away from the Aunt Jemima brand name. Aunt Jemima is in the headline, which is "... new ads remind customers it used to be Aunt Jemima – without mentioning the racist brand". Neither of those sources indicates that the new brand is becoming more well known than the old one. At this point we don't even know whether the new brand will persist in the market for very long. If it does, perhaps a separate article should be created to discuss it. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC) Comment I removed the RFC tag, I'm not sure why everyone was upset about it, we are gonna have the exact same discussion with or without the tag, and it's not like it could have been moved off of that RFC alone anyway. So, here, it's no longer an RFC, it's just a discussion. FrederalBacon (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

What is this discussion about? Since you mentioned several times that you are "not requesting a move" and it's "just a discussion", so it seems to be merely about satisfying your curiosity about various items related to the topic generally, and since you're not requesting a move and just satisfying your curiosity, it's not about improving the article; and since it's not about improving the article, it's just general discussion about the topic; and since it's just general discussion about the topic, it doesn't belong here on the Talk page because the Talk guideline prohibits general discussion about the topic. Closed per WP:NOTFORUM. Feel free to open a move request if that's what you want to do, or to discuss any concrete point that may lead to improvement in the article. If you just want to satisfy your curiosity or discuss the topic in a general sort of way, try the WP:Reference desk. Mathglot (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

What it WAS was originally an RFC, but then a couple editors were upset, and one accused me of "Forum shopping", which I utterly reject as untrue, because I am a completely uninterested editor, have made no contributions to the page, except I think reverting vandalism, and it wound up on my watchlist. I then was just reading through articles, and realized that this was about the company, not the character, so I was wondering why it hadn't been moved. I looked on talk, saw the discussions, didn't want to open a requested move without knowing what people thought, so I did an RFC, to see if consensus had changed, now that there were reliable sources calling it by the new company name. I then had to defend myself from a bunch of accusation of requesting a move (which I did not) and after deleting the RFC tag, we started getting into the substantive discussion, suddenly, it's closed as WP:NOTFORUM, despite the fact that I was making substantive policy arguments, with an extremely condescending link to the reference desk, like we send in welcome messages to new editors. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion generated way more heat than light, and I see little agreement but much forbearance on the part of patient editors trying to explain things to you. This doesn't belong here. You want to continue this exercise in futility? Here ya go: uncollapsed. Mathglot (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Would it have been better for me to just outright open a move request? That's certainly not going to generate any heat at all, based off of how much an RFC did. I wanted to talk about why this page was still named the way it was, without the pressure of a 7 day move request. An RFC seemed appropriate, people were upset, and now, you're STILL treating me condescendingly "patient editors trying to explain things to you" is CLEARLY not in good faith. So I ask, why would I want to continue the discussion with this group? Y'all need to read WP:CIVIL. FrederalBacon (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll admit to being a bit defensive and testy in this conversation, and I apologize for that. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I wasn't trying to cause a problem, I was just confused. Honestly, my personal opinion, the character is so much more notable than the company, I'm surprised this article is about the company, not the character. FrederalBacon (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)