Talk:Cafe Hon

Edit request from Pockets101992, 16 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please remove:

In late 2010 a debate over the owner's trademark of the term "Hon" arose. Editorial writers in The Baltimore City Paper [16] and the Baltimore Sun as well as Steve Yasko, general manager of WTMD [17]: one of Baltimore's public radio stations, condemned this action: "The response to Whiting's move has been so strong and negative — so much so that you wonder if Café Hon's owner has squandered the good will she'd established with her customers. Here's why: You can't own something that doesn't belong to you," wrote Dan Rodricks in the Baltimore Sun on December 11, 2010. [18] Within days the news became a national story, with editorials in the Chicago Tribune[19], which as well as over 1300 people joining a "Boycot Cafe Hon" Facebook page [20]. In addition, the "Yelp" listing for Cafe Hon plummeted to under 2 and a half stars[21]and an organized protest of the restaurant was scheduled for Sunday, December 19, 2010.[22]

and replace it with:

The term "HON" recently became a trademarked term in Baltimore by a local businesswoman. Denise Whiting trademarked the term "HON" for use on napkins, buttons, hats and other promotional material to promote her business, Cafe Hon, located in Baltimore. The trademark, as stated by Whiting, doesn't prevent anyone from saying "HON" or using it in general conversation.

References

Because:

The current article references newspaper articles which contain false and misleading information. I Contacted the chicago tribune about their article and they were shocked and confused because that article was not actually posted in their paper but it was made to appear so by someone who, works with the Baltimore sun, posted this article as a Blog. The chicago tribune and baltimore sun are owned by the same company however the article was NOT actually posted in the chicago tribune and is NOT reputable. also the article contains false information about Denise whiting and her business.

Pockets101992 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's not going to be so easy. This link, from WTMD, and this one, from CityPaper Blogs, those should go--they are hardly reliable sources and they are cited to prove a widespread controversy, a load they cannot bear. But I see nothing wrong with this article from The Baltimore Sun. This letter to the editor of The Chicago Tribune has no standing, nor does the Facebook group--in both cases it's primary evidence, at best, of a couple of individuals possibly not liking the move. Something similar applies to Yelp. But the Press Release, that doesn't even look authoritative. I can justify trimming this considerably, that's for sure. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Concur with Drmies. Rodricks is a well-established columnist, so when he publishes something in his column, that's a WP:RS. If it's got factual mistakes or is based on poor sourcing on his part, we can't do anything without a comparably reliable source supporting that correction or calling him on incorrect analysis--WP is a a tertiary source, we say what others say and that's it. Blog-posts, letters-to-editor, social-media messages and activities--none of those are WP:RS unless the authors are notable or the posts/letters/activites are commented on by others (sources do not become reliable solely by quantity, especially user-generated content on public-posting sites). We also can't just rely on primary sources and press releases alone, since that only gives one person's view of the facts (WP should not be spinnable by only reporting article's subject's statements!). I could support including it as a ref for specific actions or statements of the store/owner/etc (say what she says, say how public reacts--that's how we report contraversies). But we don't need to...that's a primary source, and we already have a secondary source (the Baltimore Messenger ref) that reports it anyway, in context and with additional information--see WP:SECONDARY. DMacks (talk) 09:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite where it should be yet --- the current version makes it sound like Rodricks is out there on his own, which really isn't the case.SHJohnson (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

All we need is some WP:RS mentioning that. Maybe some other major columnists weighing in (notable commentator/publication) or news/factual reporting on the general-public's reactions. A quick search for items in The Baltimore Sun items found this as a starting point. DMacks (talk) 07:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Pockets101992, 17 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The current article reads that the owner of Cafe Hon, Denise Whiting, filed to trademark hon in 2010, this is incorrect. as shown on the US Patent and trademark office archive. The links expire therefore i cannot give a direct link however it is very simple to go to there page, Here: http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=searchss&state=4001:goq0tn.1.1 and search "hon" alot of marks come up but if you look at the bottom of the list at listing number 41 you will see the correct information is that she originally filed for the trademark in 2004 and was granted the mark in 2005

Pockets101992 (talk) 03:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

...then Drmies tweaked the wording, then... User:DMacks, adding chronology note

{{edit semi-protected}} She does not claim to have a trademark on it. she HAS a trademark on it and has had it since 2005. Also The single line quoted out of the Baltimore sun article is the most negative line in the entire article. it is not right that that should be the one line quoted. I don't mean to cause frustration I just want to make sure this gets straightened out. there was initially some extremely derogatory remarks about the owner. one went so far as to call her a "greedy bitch"

Pockets101992 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted the wording to state that she does have a trademark, and (hopefully) clarified that the store/promotion/use is from 2010 rather than or in addition to the mark itself being 2010. The exact year does not seem to be notable in the context of the article here...I'll try to figure out how to cite the fact of the mark though. DMacks (talk) 09:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I went strictly by what the article said, and you obviously know a lot more about this sort of stuff than I do. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cafe Hon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004044522/http://www.prsafe.com/new_press_releases/view/882/baltimore-slang-term-hon-trademarked to http://www.prsafe.com/new_press_releases/view/882/baltimore-slang-term-hon-trademarked

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:08, 29 July 2017 (UTC)