Talk:American Riviera Orchard

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American Riviera Orchard article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Retailing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Retailing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of retailing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RetailingWikipedia:WikiProject RetailingTemplate:WikiProject RetailingRetailing articles

Retailing To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Assess : SM Lanang Premier
Copyedit : Retailing in India
Expand : :- Please expand this project's list of articles. The subcategories of Category:Retailers is also an excellent starting point.
- Expand this project's image gallery page

- More articles for expansion: Automated retail, Big-box store, Chain store, Hypermarket, Store manager
NPOV : Retail loss prevention
Photo : Retail design
Stubs : Leakage (retail), Retail geography
Verify : Department store, Discount store, Retail clerk, Retail in the Republic of Ireland, Retail media, Retail software, Suggested retail price
Other : * Please add this project's banner {{WikiProject Retailing}} to retail-related talk pages. Also, bots can be utilized to automate this task.
- Also, add biographies to the articles list.

–When a task is completed, please remove it from the list.

Why is the Wikipedia page so one-sided?

The majority of the sources are from conservative websites and speak negatively about the brand. What about a balanced approach? Magnesium77 (talk) 02:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnesium77 feel free to locate those articles! I've added what I can find in the news. If you think it is unbalanced, can you list out the articles you feel would help balance the article? --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 16:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added articles to provide balance and nuance. I also made edits to remove biased sources and speculation. Is there a reason those were removed/undone? Magnesium77 (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am asking is the absence of an edit summary on your revert of my edits. Just want to ensure the Wikipedia page adheres to WP:NPOV and does not engage in WP:UNDUE. Let me know. Magnesium77 (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; I should have left an edit summary. You removed many references, calling them "speculation". The statements are referenced to myriad sources, and to call the all the 3,000+ bytes of information you removed "speculation" seems more like a sanitization/PR move than thoroughly examining the sourcing and information. --15:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)~ Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding.

The reason I categorize them as speculation is due to lack of evidence and the root sources being gossip and tabloids. There is ample/obvious evidence of the brand’s trademark hurdles directly from USPTO, which is why I did not delete that part. However, there is no evidence that Markle considered changing the name of the brand. There is also no evidence of the staff exits affiliated with American Orchard, which is why I added the word “alleged”. Similarly, there is no statistical evidence Charles III’s jam sales increased substantially. Moreover, the “reception” category seems a bit premature considering the brand has not fully launched yet. I think the brand’s “reception” should be limited to the products and exclude gossip, speculation and tabloid fodder about Markle herself. If you are able to provide sources other than these to support your stance, I am more than happy to take a look. Magnesium77 (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for the sales increasing substantially is from Sky News, as is a lot of the content you've removed from the page. Please look at WP:RSP, which shows Sky News as a green-level RSP, meaning the source is a trusted, reliable one.

The reception category is not premature, given the brand has debuted while products have not. Brands can absolutely have a reception, as is the case here, as it's gotten lots of coverage in green-level RSPs, like Sky News, The Guardian, and the New Zealand Herald. As for your original comment about this article being one-sided, The Cut, another green-level source on RSP, said the brand has gotten "bad press" with no mention of any good press. Link here.

As an aside, you seem exceptionally well versed in WP lingo for having a redlinked username. How long have you been editing? --Greens vs. Blacks (talk) 18:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RSP, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS should be taken into consideration even when using a green-level RSP.

The Cut article absolutely mentions a tough year for the brand. However, unlike the claims you selected to include in the reception category, The Cut article does not mention mockery, ridicule, or the brand being total crap. These characterizations are someone's claims and opinions, not facts. And they mainly come from gossip rags/tabloids and people who dislike Markle.

I joined Wikipedia in July 2024 and have been editing on an intermittent basis ever since. Just like you. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please take a look at WP:NOTOPINION and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Magnesium77 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Just a heads-up about the letter of protest by Harry & David: the letter was already reviewed, and no further action needed to be taken according to the USPTO. Take a look at the Prosecution History section of the Trademark Status page.

Link: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=98389841&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Magnesium77 (talk) 14:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]