Jump to content

Talk:Woods Coffee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled old discussions/uncivil arguments

[edit]
Please focus on the article and not the contributor Phearson (talk) 23:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously being used as an advertisement space. Unless there is anything substantive not coming from the woods' IP addresses, then it should be slated for deletion.


All Woods Coffee edits should be suspect for advertisement bias/ non-objective. The advertisement banner remains will remain.

140.160.117.250 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Aldnonymous, why did you take off last two edits? 140.160.117.250 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNDUE--Ald™ ¬_¬™ 20:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


allright, so take off the facebook citation. the boycott bit still stands, and so does the advert. can you request editorial review? i am busy right now. 140.160.117.250 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

then why u have a time to make that edit...? NO. i won't make any edit that violate WP:NPOV neither i do want to make an edit based on WP:NOR thank you. --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 20:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE : i won't remove your tag since it's true that it "is written like an advertisement" and yeah i support that tag. thank for your contribution(s).--Ald™ ¬_¬™ 20:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


thanks. i am not trying to be DE. I have to go to class. I'll wait till the bellingham herald publishes something on the boycott to add that on. thanks. 140.160.117.250 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that you should wait to post the boycott information section until it has been published by a more reliable source. Thanks for dialoguing here. I hope we can come to an equitable agreement and a fairly-written piece on this page. 76.121.45.254 (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited out all non-objective parts of the page. Please note any objections here. 140.160.11.153 (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


HEY YALL please do not make controversial changes to this article without first discussing them here!!! 140.160.168.111 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks...I encountered someone yesterday who questioned me about the Woods Coffee flap. Neither of us are associated with Woods, except as customers. I've been a customer for several years. Not a die-hard; I also go to local coffeehouses and Starbucks, depending on the situation. I'm gonna revert this page to what it was prior to major changes. Here's the deal: in my view, the Woods Coffee wikipage and the rumormongering are inappropriate. If someone wants to include Herman's fraud information, then the awards he has earned should also be included. --Dubyus (talk) 14:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this is about woods coffee changes undone.140.160.11.221 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing advert notation...any advertising language is inconsequential. Dubyus (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's not clear...dubyus=skeptical. After the conversations I had yesterday and research about the rumors, I'm skeptical about the changes to the Woods Coffee wikipage. They seem vindictive and are not neutral. I have nothing to do with Woods Coffee INC other than being a customer for several years. Dubyus (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

methinks dubyus doth complain too much. Please refrain from personal attacks here, or anywhere else. Thank you for cooperating. 140.160.186.105 (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone. It appears that this article is being DE by a new user, Dubyus. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.160.168.117 (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubyus, you need to keep your cool. Since you are new to wikipedia you should know about collaborative information: it is not a tool for you to selectively display whatever information you would like to see. Wiki-ing is a community effort. You cannot just single-handedly start attacking information you dislike. That is the fastest way to get booted from our forum. If you insist on being uncooperative, you will be disallowed from further editing privileges.. 140.160.168.117 (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously "word on the street" has no place on wikipedia. If W. Herman has a criminal record, and speaks openly about it, then why shouldn't it be on the website? You are the only one here pulling personal attacks. 140.160.168.117 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I move to maintain NPOV and DE against user Dubyus, as it seems he is not meeting criteria above. 140.160.178.141 (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem including W. Herman's criminal record. However, when it is the first item in the article and is not accompanied by _any_ of the positive things he has done, it gives a POV that is not neutral. So the article on Woods Coffee is in contention and the discuss page has revisions that show the sort of personal attack that has been going on with this article (see edit from 20:02, 25 April 2011) Dubyus (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now comes the same Anonymous Coward that has been attacking Woods Coffee to instruct this new user (who's been using Wikipedia for years) that this sort of intentional behavior to maintain a Neutral POV will be disallowed from further editing privileges. If you are a WP admin, have at it. Otherwise, this sounds like bluster. Dubyus (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not attacked information I don't like, other than wanting neutral/balanced or nothing. It would be helpful if someone else claimed responsibility for this Anonymous Coward contribution. Dubyus (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with publishing the fact that Herman is a convicted con man? He isn't allowed to vote or own a gun. You wouldn't trust a convicted felon with your kids, would you? How about with your community? You are engaging in personal politics. By the way, what's your real name, mister anonymous coward?140.160.168.104 (talk) 04:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to neutrality...quoting previous talk... "I have no problem including W. Herman's criminal record. However, when it is the first item in the article and is not accompanied by _any_ of the positive things he has done, it gives a POV that is not neutral. So the article on Woods Coffee is in contention and the discuss page has revisions that show the sort of personal attack that has been going on with this article (see edit from 20:02, 25 April 2011)" Dubyus (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Woods Coffee, not Wes Herman. To create a biography of a living person, a page should be created for Wes Herman. Guidelines at WP:BLP. I have been in various Woods Coffee locations many times. I have never seen Wes Herman. Never met Wes Herman. He has nothing to do with the daily in-person experience of Woods Coffee. The fact that he plead guilty to a crime and apparently paid the penalty has nothing to do with customers' experience of Woods Coffee. On the other hand, I have interacted with Woods Coffee people who are friendly and service-oriented. Those are the people who stand to suffer the most from this apparent vendetta against Wes Herman. (I'm not related to Woods Coffee, Wes Herman, or any Woods employee.) Why are you so determined to put Herman in a negative light by replacing facts with negative stuff and not including any of the positives? Personal politics perhaps? Dubyus (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, so you admit this has nothhing to do with Wes Herman. So lets take out that "Herman family dream" BS, and it will be a good start. 140.160.178.102 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted page to remove vandalism and personal attacks. Nothing to admit. Woods Coffee!=Wes Herman. If you want to start a page on Wes Herman, a living person, guidelines can be found at WP:BLP. Please show where there is anything about a "Herman family dream". It sounds like you are still so caught up in getting at Wes Herman that you are not reading the article. And I am still wondering why you insist on putting negative stuff about Wes Herman on the Woods Coffee page to the detriment of other people who are associated with Woods Coffee such as employees and satisfied customers. Dubyus (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a request Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Woods_Coffee_NPOV to resolve reversion game. Dubyus (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one playing games here. Wes Herman is a convicted felon...deleted material in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP... You have a personal problem here. Stop your disruptive editing and move on with your life. 140.160.11.220 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP. "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page." This is a Wikipedia page. More from WP:BLP:

  • "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] Users who constantly or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Dubyus (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been edited in accord with the WP:BLP guidelines. Deleted material can be found at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Woods_Coffee_NPOV.Dubyus (talk) 17:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubyus, this is definitely not over. This article started as a crappy advertisement. The Boycott should be getting some attention here too. You need to re-evaluate your relationship with Wes Herman.140.160.191.42 (talk) 19:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know how the article got started; removing adverpedia is appropriate. Violating WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are not appropriate. Conflating Woods Coffee as a business with personal attacks on someone who may be an owner is not appropriate. Apparently you are free to create a page on Wes Herman as long as it fits with WP:BLP guidelines. I have no relationship with Wes Herman to re-evaluate; I've never met him, never talked with him. I have seen his picture. I have met his employees and customers, all seem well satisfied. As am I. There simply is no reason to damage Woods Coffee (the business) for whatever vengeful reason. If you want the world to know about Wes Herman, then how about just writing that? Dubyus (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Talk:Evan_knappenberger Anonymous user from Western Washington University/Haggard Hall Computer Lab 112 (hh112ws10.hh112lab.wwu.edu) writes:

"...You want to engage in personal attacks, again, huh. But you are so courageous, what is your real name? You are a coward. Even if you attack Evan Knappenberger, Woods Coffee is going to be put out of business. Why don't you face it, your way of life is over, and no amount of personal vendetta against Evan Knappenberger will resolve that. 140.160.11.220 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)"

With that level of vitriol, it is unlikely that any agreement will be reached on this WikiPage. Clearly, anonymous user from 140.160.###.### is not committed to WP:NPOV, but rather to damaging a legitimate business. --Dubyus (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected

[edit]

Due to BLP concerns, I've semi-protected the article for a while. Please come to some agreement here rather than endlessly edit-war over what the contents should be, especially when talking about a living person.

James F. (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Locations Relevant?

[edit]

Are the locations of this business relevant to the article? If not individually notable, they should be removed. Phearson (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per the content noticeboard advice, I have removed the excessive location information, and replaced it with a summery with a ref linking to locations. Phearson (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no basis in policy for removing this information. There was no consensus at the content noticeboard to remove this information. Therefore, I've reverted this yet again. -Atmoz (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should be removed as it is too much detail for an encyclopedia-style summary article, and the presence of so much unimportant text makes the article seem more than it is, promoting the company too much. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

Seriously, no page would be complete without mentioning the boycott on Woods Coffee: www.woodscoffeeboycott.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.213.194 (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source, do you have reliable secondary sources such as newspaper reports for WP:Verification? Phearson (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That boycott site is full of rumors and half-truths. The simple edits from Phearson are appropriate to Wikipedia. --Dubyus (talk) 03:23, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean that critical information cannot be added later if independent sources are found regarding the primary's boycott, And thank you for your compliment. Phearson (talk) 03:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mention of the external website should be removed from this talk page. If the information on Woods Coffee can be so tightly restricted, it is only fair that this antagonistic free advertising for a vendetta should also be restricted. Please remove the reference to the non-existent boycott. Dubyus (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. This may develop later into something useful for the article when secondary sources appear, Transparency is key on Wikipedia. Phearson (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Woods Coffee Boycott is very real I assure you. If it was up to Dubyus, only corporate propaganda would be available on Wikipedia. 64.134.136.36 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well IP, I cannot use your word as a WP:RS. The project does not work that way. And must ask you to focus on the content, and not the contributor. I am well aware of Dubyus' editing history as a SPA, and I'm certain the editors who have arrived here from the various noticeboards, RC patrol will keep watch for any of that nonsense, Including un-sourced anti-propaganda. Phearson (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When I was searching for news items about Woods Coffee I did not find anything about a controversy. If there is one, it is not in the news, which makes me think it is not notable. Binksternet (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly lots of blog cross-links posted all over the place, but that doesn't suffice. But just one WP:RS that there is a boycott or even that there is a controversy over local-papers availability, overt politics, etc and it's viable. One root seems to be an item in the May 2011 edition of The Betty Pages (one of the alt-papers the boycott mentions). It actually includes attempts at fact-checking and conclude that there are suspicions (and also notes general Conservative leaning of the company) but was not able to confirm the specifics of the alt-papers situation. DMacks (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the Betty Pages editorial and checked out the complaint regarding censorship by visiting Woods Coffee and the big name coffee shops (Starbucks & Tully's) that are local competitors. Woods has the same papers as those biggies--NYT, Bellingham Herald, USA Today--plus the Seattle Times. The alt-papers are offered in other local java shops like the Black Drop, a local favorite close to one of the Woods locations, that carries all sorts of alt-like news, weeklies, advertisements, etc. I saw no indications of conservative bias at Woods. It's a coffee shop...baristas, expensive and sometimes foofy coffee stuff, eats, tables, free wifi, chess, weirdos, straights, students. Don't understand the big deal. Has anyone asked Howard "Starbucks" Schultz if the company is anti-gay because they don't have alt-papers? The local managers say that they get directions from on high. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.6.152 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that the anti-corp page says that the owner forbids alt-papers from being read in his shop. But even if someone were to practice this, it still needs to be written about in a WP:RS. Phearson (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know where that comes from. I saw nothing like this when I visited the shop. I did observe the small newspaper stand where only the few papers are displayed/for sale. Also saw a Whatcom County what-to-do magazine for sale with a copy to borrow. The baristas seem to be in charge, and they are pretty laid back. Hard to imagine that they would forbid someone from reading anything. It's kinda like they don't pay attention to what people are doing. It seems like that level of control would get people talking to the local newsies. The place I went is one block away from the main paper's building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.6.152 (talk) 03:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I had the same problems; I concluded that the sources showing controversy were not quite solid enough. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMacks, could you please link the content you mentioned here for review by others? Phearson (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] page 15. There's an author bio-capsule on the second page of the pdf (no page#; adjacent to the table-of-contents). (DMacks (talk) 18:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COI editor notice

[edit]

User:Jessicamarlae has identified herself as a representative of Woods Coffee, and has made her intentions known to edit this article on my talk page. I notified her of relevant conflict of interest policies and provided some advice. I am letting everyone know here so that there is no conflict/misunderstanding later. Phearson (talk) 17:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that any employees or people associated with Woods Coffee be immediately disallowed to edit this webpage. Thank you. And I agree, transparency and openness are key. (Personal attack removed) This can only hurt Wikipedia in the end. 64.134.136.36 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Any people who are connected to Woods Coffee in a promotional or anti-corporate manner are constrained by the guideline at WP:COI but they can certainly add neutral material to the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topic to add

[edit]

Woods Coffee has apparently been involved in a controversy involving a public art project. See [2], a reliable source that discusses multiple aspects of this situation. This sort of independently-reported controversy supports notability. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I'll add it. Phearson (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phearson added information about controversy. Added information from the same Bellingham Herald article that addresses other aspects of the controversy, including community involvement, Herman's reasoning, information about the Arts District. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.6.152 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see the reference now. Thank you. Phearson (talk) 16:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference material to add to wiki article

[edit]

Has a bunch of history and great detail on how the business started and various other tidbits. I don't have the time now to integrate to main article at this time. Hopefully, someone else does. :)

Iain (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Woods_Coffee&oldid=1207881740"