Talk:Voodoo Doughnut

Swahili Lessons

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)

There really hasn't been any since they started staying open 24 hours a day. Grapeofdeath (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I like Safeway donuts better. No way is this article of "low importance" in any regard. It's a store that sells donuts layered in sugary cereal and bacon. Cool. PortlandOregon97217 (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Data

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)

• It makes sense if you consider that the company relies almost entirely on part-time employees that are paid minimum wage. I don't think it's a stretch to assume that many of them only work a handful of hours in a given week. Constablequackers (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

OE source

• https://oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/voodoo_doughnut/#.WUayLRiZNo4 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I think we might need to protect this page

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.

Might need protection disruptive editing in general, as seen this week. AHampton (talk) 22:21, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Houston expansion

• KHOU.com

---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Voodoo Doc Film

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)

@AHampton: I removed the YouTube content, because I don't believe the addition is consistent with WP:YT <--this is a clickable link, by the way. As for general inclusion of materials into the article, I understand it needs to be reliably published per WP:PUBLISHED. As you know, anyone with experience can be an indie director and as such, to make it open for anyone to place a film made about a particular topic onto the topic would mean Wikipedia would be a gumball of external links. The video that is the subject of contention is described as "Anna Maj Michelson, Magda Diaz of www.pixpusher.com" sourced on the author's own YouTube account; and I'm unable to find that this piece of work has received notability. Graywalls (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Please stop your edit-warring. There is no ban on YouTube user hosted videos and I think it passes WP:YT. The film is the singular Voodoo Doughnut documentary, and had a theatrical release; it's degree of success as a film is not the criteria here. It is a 14 year-old short, so you won't find much current press, though it is mentioned in and currently linked on the website for PDXccentric Guidebook (https://pdxccentric.wordpress.com/b11-voodoo-doughnuts/) And, FYI: encyclopedias are where people seek out lesser-known and obscure information pertinent to a particular subject which, otherwise, might not ever be found. That is why I'd updated the old link (archived: https://web.archive.org/web/20060113062812/http://gimmedoughnut.com/) to begin with.

• • I'd like to see some other editors weigh in on this. AHampton (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

At the time you restored the link, you didn't have anything indicating the film was anything more than some person that made a documentary about a place, which quite frankly people do often on YouTube. So with the information that was available, the removal wasn't uncalled for. As for the "spam", I checked the source, no mention of anything voodoo at the linked page. Graywalls (talk) 23:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

No, when I replaced the link, I did only that. When I restored it, I added a secondary source. Research takes more time, but removals are often undermining to the whole of knowledge. As for the spam... as I wrote then, it's not spam, it's just not the right link about the same show. You seem to delete a lot of things that simply require updating or further research, which I don't think is productive to the aim of Wikipedia.AHampton (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

If a claim is made and a cited page doesn't support the claim, it's fair game to have it dismissed. Unfortunately, it's extremely common for people to slip in unsupportable claims or link to unrelated pages for promoting the contents or simply adding links and hoping that their contribution won't be scrutinized. Although, I'm concerned that your edit like this indicates policies be darned, you'll do what you want. That was after I linked to the relevant policy. Graywalls (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@AHampton:I've reviewed several captures of https://voodoodoughnut.com/voodoodoughnutTV.php and it was revealed that they routinely shared user created YouTube videos. Aside form a line mention in an article about a routine announcement about a store location opening, I see no evidence that this video received any notability and it isn't hosted anywhere but on the video sharing pages of the authors, so I'm inclined to believe leaving it removed is appropriate. Adding independent media would be under WP:LINKFARM and if it was intended to be useful information, then I believe it would have to satisfy reliable and self published YouTube video often lacks editorial oversight to ensure filming presents the perspective in a neutral manner. Overall, I believe not including it is proper. I think a formal discussion on this matter would be awesome since it would help form consensus on such matters for future reference. Graywalls (talk) 06:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm with AHampton on this one so I vote "keep." This isn't a shaky-cam personal video that someone slapped together while standing in line for a few Blazer Blunt doughnuts with their iPhone camera and later posted on YouTube for a handful of their friends to watch. It was indie documentary that screened in at least one theater and, I'm assuming, received at least some local coverage back in the day from Portland-based publications like The Portland Mercury and Willamette Week. Unfortunately, it's a 14+ year-old film and the online archives for these publications aren't as extensive as we might all like. Based on these factors, I think it should be included. Furthermore, Voodoo Doughnuts is a small chain of doughnuts shops. I don't think such stringent standards should be applied to sources for small/independent businesses here on Wikipedia. If you're going to set the bar to a level where everything has to be from a daily paper, a magazine, or a slick film produced by a major studio, roughly 4/5s of all articles on this website would need to be radically chopped down or removed entirely. Constablequackers (talk) 08:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

There's no sliding scale for source standards and appropriate external links based based on the organization size. To comment on your last sentence, article for deletion actually queues up quite a bit. this list is just for April 3rd, 2019. Graywalls (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is. It's one of most unspoken but commonplace things you'll find on Wikipedia. Without allowing for a certain degree of laxness when it comes to sources for, in this case, a small business, these articles couldn't/wouldn't exist. I don't know if you're new to the site, but debates over relevance of articles, the worthiness of sources, and so on go back to pretty much its formation and have yet to be entirely resolved. More on how this applies to this particular scenario can be found below. Constablequackers (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion criteria

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.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

This would be the opposite of a slipstream case. (As previously stated in the section where this new section belongs); Gimme Doughnut is a 2005 documentary film about the subject made by a film production company that had a theatrical release at the Hollywood Theatre. Your monetizing argument is a real stretch... That production company did not bother getting the long-dead link updated after folding its website when the director moved to Spain, so its obviously not them looking for hits. Again... a little research is better than a lot of deletions, which you seem to demonstrate a fondness for. I am particularly concerned with your mis-labeling of spam on certain content deletions. AHampton (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Again, I agree with AHampton. A deletionist approach to this scenario simply doesn't make sense. A small amount of research into the documentary, its participants, and how it all came together proves why it should be included here. While I can see why removing videos that, as you note, may attempt to exploit Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to them over on YouTube, that clearly isn't what's happening here. Furthermore, the documentary serves as a sort of time capsule that captures what's become an iconic Portland-based business during its earlier years before it went on to appear on national TV shows, get talked about by Anthony Bourdain, open multiple locations around the world, and so on. Furthermore, should a briefly mentioned source or link on Wikipedia really necessitate a lengthy disclaimer explaining its inclusion? Constablequackers (talk) 08:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Well stated, Constablequackers. Can we get some more opinions to conclude this tiresome diversion? AHampton (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I have to go with AHampton and Constablequackers on this one. While Graywalls has very good general arguments (and I sometimes make several of them myself), they don't appear to be applicable to this particular work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I too go with AHampton and Constablequackers. We have some niche donut shop and there is a niche documentary made about it, which is no surprise. Might be useful to the reader to see the documentary, but wow we could get into a slippery slope with this one if we start allowing every UGC to be added to any article, just cause it is interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• [summoned by bot]. First thing, OP please review best practices for forming an WP:RFC. The RfC starts with a statement in which the only question isn't the real question. I had to read the thread above to understand what was happening. That said, I agree it should be omitted. Not because it's on YouTube, not because it should have a bigger theatrical run, etc. but because the quality is terrible and it provides almost nothing of substance to the reader. It's a 144p video, but the actual documentary takes up less than half of those pixels, such that the picture is barely intelligible. As far as I can tell, this isn't well-researched, well-edited information about the history of this establishment but "stories about employees and customers having fun at the donut shop". I stopped watching halfway through, when we had moved from one employee's knowledge of Swahili (irrelevant to the subject) to another employee (or customer?) talking about putting stirrers through his penis (hopefully irrelevant to the subject). That it did show in a theater doesn't mean anything. Anyone can rent a theater for a showing or have a friend at a theater -- especially in a place like Portland. In short, omit because the quality makes it a great failure of WP:EL. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
• Relisting comment: There was a clear consensus to keep the link until Rhododendrites' comment on 10 April 2019, after which no one commented further. Relisting to give editors the opportunity to discuss this further.

  Cunard (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Omit, because as User:Rhododendrites said, "the quality makes it a great failure of WP:EL" Peter K Burian (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Omit. The bot summoned me. Ordinarily I would tend towards inclusion of third-party documentaries of boutique local flavor establishments, but the low quality and odd format lead me to believe that readers will not be served by this video. It does establish the folksy iconoclast atmosphere of the place, but the article does that just fine without an excursion to a ten minute illegibly low-res video depending on titles and shots of text nobody can read. EllenCT (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Here, I found this legible version edited down to 6m16s which I would wholeheartedly support including. EllenCT (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for finding this, but FWIW this resolves the first half of my rationale for omitting, but not the second. I'd still prefer to see this version omitted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:08, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm all for the better version. I think the footage does offer the reader insight into what the place is like that words alone do not convey. (Personally, I'd had to see it live to believe what I'd read and heard, when I lived in Portland. The donuts are average, with unusual decorations and packaging, but, other than that, the dedication to "keep Portland weird" culture is its outstanding feature, and is rewarded with massive line-ups most days, and that weirdness shows in the film.) Sure, it's weird: Voodoo is weird, proudly weird.AHampton (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      • [summoned by bot]. omit or improve. I'd agree that an illegible video is useless to readers (viewers?) but that a legible one could offer useful context for what seems to this outsider almost too weird to believe. (People pay money for this stuff?) yoyo (talk) 05:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger_proposal

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)

• Support merge. No reason to have two small articles about this subject rather than one. It will help readers if all relevant information is in one place. Narky Blert (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
• support merge. Calve a new page should the recording company ever become notable. AHampton (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and completed the merge.Neonblak ^talk - 14:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Pro Publica Primary Source

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)

Fix to History Section

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)

Yeah, the opening announcements were sort of annoying. At the very least they could have found a more natural way to work them into the text rather than just listing them. That aside, a few of the suggestions made by the Voodoo Marketing account weren't altogether terrible. Adding additional mentions of the attention the company has received from various TV programs might be okay. Constablequackers (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

666

@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’.” . 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." 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

Yeah, this is a fun one to tackle. The problem here is that Shannon doesn't seem to actually know much about the tenets, practices, and beliefs of Voodoo even though he's the co-owner of a supposedly Voodoo-themed doughnut shop. Ultimately, 666 does *not* go along with the chain's theme. Is it punk rock, metal, edgy, satanic, or whatever? Sure, but Voodoo? Naw. I guess it's a mute point since you've opted to toss out these details. I'm fine with that. Let's move on. Constablequackers (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, was your justification for selectively removing it based on disagreeing with the source? See WP:VNT. Whether you find it to be correct or not, that was justification used by business owner. It's not Wikipedia editors position to get involved in correctness of what's said in reliable sources. We basically write based on what reliable sources say. Graywalls (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't really know why we're continuing to discuss material that's been removed, but the "Voodoo-theme" statement was presented as a fact. Since Shannon was making a statement that wasn't factual, it should have been something like "which, according to Shannon, went along with the shop's Voodoo-theme" or something like that. Applying your interpretation of WP:VNT to, say, Donald Trump's Wikipedia article sure would be interesting! I guess everything that comes out of the president's mouth would have to be presented as the truth! Are we done here? I think we're done here. Moving on... Constablequackers (talk) 08:09, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Union

• https://pdx.eater.com/2021/2/22/22295800/voodoo-doughnut-union-recognition-election

---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Positioning of unionization

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)

My argument basically amounts to this: of all the things this company is known for, does the unionization effort merit this much attention? If so, why exactly? It certainly doesn't belong in the lede in place of other things ranging from their world record, their arguably iconic pink boxes, their crazy/silly crazy doughnuts that have earned them attention in various publications/TV shows/etc. Yes, there is the Al Jazeera link. As for the section's placement, basically that boils down to what makes sense. Shouldn't it go beside Operations? Furthermore, why should it be placed above the Doughnut section, which is what this chain is all about? But if you're in favor of expanding the intro, which I think is too short, maybe that's what should be done. It can be a mix of controversial stuff (the choking incident, the Willamette Week cover story from a few years ago, the unionization effort) and general info (locations, what they're known for, the Niquil/Pepto doughnuts, and so on). If you're up for that, let's aim for some sort of neutral middle ground up there. Constablequackers (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Constablequackers:, my answer would be yes. The coverage in article reflects coverage in reliable sources. Coverage in Al Jazeera, a national press in depth indicates strong notability with regard to the unionization matter. The article coverage should reflect those, not what company wants it presented, keeping in mind that this is an article that suffered from repeated marketing and public relations editing by the subject company itself as can be seen from the edit history. So and so notable people said this, said that although would amount to passing mention and WP:TRIVIA and most certainly don't belong in lede WP:LEDE. Graywalls (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I think/hope we can retire this thread. There's a unionization section in the article, and I updated it with information about the events of this past summer a few months back. Constablequackers (talk) 10:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Source for Later Use

https://www.wweek.com/portland/article-18573-voodoo-child.html Graywalls (talk) 22:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan

@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)

Google and the company's website are about reliable as it gets. The mention of the Taiwan location needs to go. It closed years ago. Why are you so determined to rely on articles that are old, outdated, and no longer contain current information? It's also incredibly peculiar that you're so eager to include a detail in this article that is very clearly incorrect. Constablequackers (talk) 12:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Credible sources noted Taiwan. We go by what is verifiable. Graywalls (talk) 17:54, 31 July 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)

I agree that the information about the CEO should have featured a stronger citation. I'll remove it until I can track down a better one. As for the rest, ummmmm, you're the person who put a tag on the Union section requesting its expansion. I did so with several credible links and you removed both it and everything else I worked on last week. Many of the other changes included small grammatical edits. Please be a more selective with what you opt to remove from the page instead of just doing wide-sweeping restores. I'll also remind you that there are several discussions above that you haven't responded to, many of which are several months old. It would be great it you could take the time to look those over again and post your thoughts. Thank you. Constablequackers (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

"Iconic"

• https://pdx.eater.com/maps/portland-iconic-dishes

---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Not quite sure where you're going with this one, Another Believer. Could you clarify? Constablequackers (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Choking Death

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.

Graywalls (talk) 07:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It should definitely be included in the article, but the introduction? I don't think so. That would be like including a rundown on all the people who have died in accidents at Disneyland at the top of the theme park's page. It was a single incident, it was an accident, and it's not what the business is largely known for. Other details have been removed from the intro as well. In the interest of "keeping the peace," I think it's best if we stick with the current simple and brief introduction since we can't seem to reach a consensus on what should and shouldn't be allowed into the intro. Constablequackers (talk) 11:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The depth of coverage, and the breadth of coverage offered by Reuters is an indication of strong notability. A roller coaster accident in a local paper, no. An article dedicated to the accident in New York Times, yes. Graywalls (talk) 03:50, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

References

There's also a depth of coverage about their pink boxes, quirky decor, unusual doughnuts, and plenty of other things that you've tossed out of the intro over the past few years. Why are you so incredibly determined to include this incident in the introduction above all of these other details? Constablequackers (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Leno joke

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)

Much of the content you'll find on Wikipedia could qualify as WP:TRIVIA. It's an interesting detail that conveys the national attention the company received at one point and, like you said, it's been on the page for ages. I think it should remain. Constablequackers (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned it's been in there just to note that it wasn't just added, but that alone isn't a support of inclusion. There are plenty of articles in which contents that clearly subpar contents remain in over a decade. However, that doesn't mean that they don't benefit from a purge upon discovery. Graywalls (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still think it's an interesting detail that represents the attention the company received back in the '00s. Also: it sure would be nice if someone other than you and myself would offer up an opinion on this talk page. We need at least a third vote on this and other matters. Constablequackers (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

We go by consensus. It isn't about getting two people voted one way, one person voted another, therefore it's 2 against 1. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

You may want to check your math again. There are two people in this discussion currently. It's 1 against 1 at the moment. Constablequackers (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to put quotation mark. The argument I am making is that simply getting someone else to say yay and concluding "2 said yes, 1 said no, therefore yes" is a vote, not consensus. This is the point I am trying to make. Simply getting numerically higher vote value for one side is not a WP:CONSENSUS in favor of doing it a certain way. This is especially important with an article like this one which has suffered from repeated public relations corporate advocacy attempts as evidenced from edit history. Graywalls (talk) 09:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

All that aside, we're getting nowhere slow with all of this. You and I are the only editors out there who seem to care about this article, at least for now. We need to get more voices in here. Constablequackers (talk) 12:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I noticed you again re-inserted this. I disagree that it's a useful addition. Read the first paragraph in MOS:POPCULT Graywalls (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Vancouver, Washington

• https://www.koin.com/news/washington/voodoo-doughnut-drops-a-pin-at-new-vancouver-location/
• https://www.columbian.com/news/2021/aug/06/voodoo-doughnut-coming-to-vancouver-in-november/
• https://pdx.eater.com/2021/8/18/22629691/voodoo-doughnut-vancouver-location-food-shortage

---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Source

• https://pdx.eater.com/maps/portland-iconic-dishes

---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Eclectic decor

@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)

I gave it some thought and I think this is going to be the last thing I ever post on Wikipedia. This site has become such a drag over the past few years and even the most minute of edits can lead to battles worthy of lengthy ligation sessions all stuffed full of Wiki-terms you'd practically need a legal degree and/or a secret decoder ring to decipher. Editing Wikipedia is supposed to be fun and engaging as we all try to share knowledge about millions of random topics with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it's been overrun with, well, editors like you who are more interested in nit-picking, extreme subjectivity, rarely adding to articles or improving them, and even following around editors to other pages they've worked on just to mess with them. But at least you're honest about it. It's right there in your bio: "I write stuff and I erase stuff on Wikipedia" (much more the latter than the former and I think even you'd be willing to admit that). I'm not the first editor you've chased off this site, I won't be the last. So happy hunting! Knock yourself out! This is how you get your kicks and Wikipedia is obviously more your realm than mine so have at it. Feel free to spike the football on my head, add another notch to the side of your biplane, and/or cough up a few zingy quips. Alas, I won't be coming back to read them. It's time for some other sucker to try and expand/defend all these goofy PDX pages. Surely Voodoo Doughnut can cough up some change to pay somebody to endlessly bicker with you. I've been doing it for absolutely nada like a complete moron. There's a bloke I once knew way out east who used to do that sort of thing for a living, if you can believe it. Made tons of dough, too, if I'm not mistaken. Strange biz, but he was a strange guy. I wonder if he's still in the covert Wiki ops biz? To quote ol' Shaquille O'Neal, we may never know. Anyhoo, via con dios, over n' out, laugh hard it's a long way to the bank, blah, blah, blah. Constablequackers (talk) 09:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Seattle

• https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/news/2023/10/17/voodoo-doughnuts-seattle.html

---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• • Good catch. It will be interesting to see how well they do against other doughnut chains up there. Seattle is a Top Pot town, after all. I'd add it myself, but I've routinely run afoul of another editor on the Voodoo page who is determined, among other things, to keep the intro as brief as possible and insists on including the choking death incident in Denver within it. Long story short: I'll leave this one up to somebody else. I wish them the best of luck with this and any other edits. Constablequackers (talk) 09:31, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Lede

@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)

I'm not sure if MOS:LEAD and WP:NPOV support either the past doughnut-eating contest tradition and choking death incident or the mention of "Goth Barbie's living room" in the lead. I think looking at the WP:WEIGHT of the sources would help, and my initial impression is this seems to not favor inclusion of a descriptive opinion from one source in the lead. I have also generally looked for sources to help develop this article, and I am finding what appear to be many recycled press releases related to announcements of new store openings and new products, blogs, and websites such as Yelp.

I think taking care to review sources is particularly helpful with company articles because of common issues related to advertising and promotion that can happen, including because available sources can tend to be promotional, e.g. in the section above, American City Business Journals, which describes itself as "the premier media platform for companies strategically targeting business decision-makers". I think this is something to generally consider while developing a neutral and balanced article. Beccaynr (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr I appreciate your response. It is great to have outside input and I agree with you Goth Barbie's living room based on one magazine contributor's commentary should not be in lede, or even at all. In Wikipedia:WEIGHT it reads "in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources." The doughtnut eating contest was a tradition, https://books.google.com/books?id=EGNjKKGuFfsC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&lpg=PP1&pg=PA90#v=onepage&q&f=false and the coverage about the choking death was covered in numerous news outlets, including in the area where contestant died, regional paper in Oregon and even Reuters so I suggest this as prevalent in reliable sources. Since there's no ongoing coverage about it, it would not pass N:EVENT to have a standalone article, but it could be lede worthy. Graywalls (talk) 07:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Should the choking incident be given a rundown in this article? Absolutely. Should it be included in the lede, especially at the expense of a rundown about the business and what it does? Nope. It was a single incident about a tradition/contest that was only a *small* part of Voodoo Doughnut and its operations. Imagine turning the intro for McDonald's Wikipedia page into: "McDonald's is a burger chain with locations around the world. In the 1990s, a woman spilled coffee on herself at a drive-thru and sued the company over it." That's what Graywalls is proposing here. While I will refrain from making further snarky comments about him/her/them, I will request that they remain an active participant in this discussion, especially since they spend a great deal of time on Wikipedia. They've repeatedly ghosted prior discussions here on the Talk Back page. Constablequackers (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

As a side note, a focus on content, not contributors is part of dispute resolution policy, and taking a break from discussions can be a part of that process. If talk page discussion does not resolve this content dispute, there are further options available. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Side note: hopefully that won't be needed. Let's try to focus on getting wording for the lede/lead sorted out. Constablequackers (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I have been reviewing the article and its sources, and made some edits as I go; my goal is to get a sense of how to more fully develop the lead generally. At the present time, it seems to me to be WP:UNDUE to add mention of the doughnut-eating contest and related death incident to the lead, because the lead is currently one sentence in length. As I started to review sources, it seems as if, e.g. the founders and founding date are routinely mentioned, so this likely warrants inclusion in the lead. Perhaps for now, we could refocus attention on developing the article and lead generally, and then reassess whether and how to include a mention in the lead of a regular doughnut-eating contest that ended after the death of a contest participant in 2017. Beccaynr (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with keeping the lede/lead brief. I don't think it needs to be multiple paragraphs long ala other pages for businesses. Two or three sentences, maybe. I suggest something along these lines: "Voodoo Doughnut is an American doughnut company based in the Old Town Chinatown neighborhood of Portland, Oregon with additional locations in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Tennessee, and Texas. Founded in 2003, the company specalizes in doughnuts with unconventional themes and toppings. Voodoo Doughnut is also known for the quirky decor in its stores and pink doughnut boxes featuring the company logo and an illustration of a voodoo priest." Constablequackers (talk) 12:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel that listing out individual state locations is undue in the lede or even the body, per WP:NOTPRICE as that is basically listing of store locations. On its own, the eating contest and choking death is perhaps undue, but if we're going to reintroduce "known for quirky decor" and box thing, perhaps it's reasonable to reintroduce it had a long held tradition of doughnut eating contest until someone choked and died in store. I understand your reservation to including the choking thing as of now is that it puts undue emphasis in proportion to what else is in it. Graywalls (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The company's been around for over two decades and there's at least a few other things that could be included in the intro like their labor disputes and unionization. However, if everyone here wants the lead to remain as short as possible, I think we're looking at a general rundown on its operations contained within a few sentences and all the trivia, nasty incidents, and so on being reserved for later in the article. Constablequackers (talk) 15:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I am reviewing MOS:LEAD, and according to MOS:INTRO, I am tending to agree that overly specific descriptions of 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)

@Beccaynr:, By the way, should we have the reviews of Dallas Observer? I'm not sure if they're just opinions of papers staff and if they're not professional food critique, the contents wouldn't be of anything other than a "group of few people" that just happen to have access to getting things published. The other two looks alright as they seem to be food critics/food writer. However, a secondary coverage, such a staffer analyzing Google and Yelp review and posting their analysis would be more objective. Graywalls (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I did think the Dallas Observer seemed to be the weakest source that I had found when I deep-dived for reviews, and your analysis helps clarify why. Also, I have also been considering merging content from the Operations section into the History section - some Operations content seems repetitive, and some seems as if it could be trimmed (e.g. Vancouver opening). Beccaynr (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something, but why is there now a sentence about the current ownership in the lede without any sort of citation to go with it? There also remains the question of how best to work in a bit about the company and its products. I had a look at McDonalds page, which includes these two sentences: "McDonald's is best known for its hamburgers, cheeseburgers and french fries, although their menu also includes other items like chicken, fish, fruit, and salads. Their bestselling licensed item are their french fries, followed by the Big Mac." It has a single citation. I think that's the way to head with this. So is there any objections to adding this: "The company specalizes in doughnuts with unconventional themes and toppings. Voodoo Doughnut is also known for the quirky decor in its stores and pink doughnut boxes featuring the company logo and an illustration of a voodoo priest." There are many, many articles out there that discuss the company's products (them being vegan, creative, etc.) so finding a citation to go along with it shouldn't be an issue. Constablequackers (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think MOS:LEADCITE requires a citation for the current ownership. And I have been researching, reviewing, and editing the article, including to better discuss the lead.

From my view, it looks as if independent and reliable secondary sources do not support inclusion of being known for 'quirky decor in its stores and pink doughnut boxes featuring the company logo and an illustration of a voodoo priest' in the lead.

I also think more lead content about the doughnuts than 'unconventional themes and toppings' can be developed, based on the weight of the sources/article. Beccaynr (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

citation is not explicitly required in the lede if it's the information already covered in rest of the body and it is cited in body. Graywalls (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure enough, there doesn't seem to be any guidance regarding citations for ownership in a lede within MOS:LEADCITE. There also wasn't any information about whether or not it's appropriate to describe the doughnuts at a doughnut chain or the decor within its shops. So I've modified my proposed sentence(s). Any objections to this shortened version? "The company specializes in doughnuts with unconventional themes and toppings and its shops contain quirky decor." Constablequackers (talk) 11:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The guidance from MOS:LEAD is to summarize the article; I do not think "The company specializes in doughnuts with unconventional themes and toppings and its shops contain quirky decor" reflects the article nor the weight of the independent, reliable, secondary sources in the article. We should reflect the article based on independent, reliable, secondary sources because this is not a WP:BROCHURE.

And I was thinking about MOS:LEADCITE because it emphasizes a need for citations when verifiability policy requires it, i.e. 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)

I don't want to get too lost in the weeds with the nuances of wiki-rules, especially since they all too often get used to justify questionable inclusions, removals, etc. It's very easy to take advantage of them. Ultimately, the lede shouldn't be limited to "it's a doughnut chain and here's who owns it at the moment." What additional content should be include remains up for debate. I remain of the opinion that stating the chain sells weird doughnuts should be in there. The exact wording isn't necessarily a priority. Constablequackers (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Amount of article devoted to reception

@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)

My general thought has been that because this is a doughnut company, a portion of the article will be about the doughnuts, so my initial research has focused on trying to find independent, reliable, secondary sources; we've discussed the difference between professional food critics versus sources written by a 'group of people at the office,' and I have found it has not been easy to find professional food writing; there are currently three sources of this caliber in the article.

The other two sources in the Reception subsection support content that according to WP:STRUCTURE, seem appropriate to include there, even though the local and nonlocal (at least to the area being reported on) source focus on the appearance and meaning of the doughnuts, not on their taste. For now, I am tending to think the subsection content is balanced and reasonably-sized - the History section is also currently substantial, and I think the recent trimming of recent store opening announcements was likely the right call - the sourcing for store openings includes interview-based from company executives (with some similar things said to reporters in new locations (Columbian, Houston Chronicle), or reminiscent of a press kit (Time Out Los Angeles)

I also have not yet started researching the labor relations aspect, so this subsection may further develop. I am still making my way through the article in an initial review, so maybe things will seem more balanced overall as content continues to develop. Beccaynr (talk) 14:20, 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)

There isn't much guidance on layout for company articles, so I have been reviewing past talk page discussion on that page for general ideas; however, I think you raise a good point with regard to WP:STRUCTURE, and particularly with the recent trim of the quote (that I have also been thinking seemed undue), I think the content in the Accolades section could be folded back into the History section. Beccaynr (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Illegal retaliation

@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)

In context, the Portland Mercury report does not seem to be a reliable source for the statement, both because of the publication and the quality of the report; I swapped the reference for an AP News piece, which relies on a KOIN news report and says "the firings were unjust." The KOIN report uses the same phrase; I also added a reference from Willamette Week, [1], that uses the phrase "wrongly terminated" and provides background context. I also searched for the text of the decision but it does not seem to be available on the NLRB webite. So I removed content from a source that seems weak, and added the more general language from sources that seem stronger. Beccaynr (talk) 07:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I feel the same about Inside Hook based contents. Do we really need to say they partnered with Rogue to release flavors? Co-marketing is rather routine and that publication don't even have a Wikipedia page. There's no question that this happened. It's a matter of is it due to include it? Graywalls (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Inside Hook does have an editorial staff, and the contents of that piece seem to add depth to the article; it's not promo, and suggests opportunities for further research. Beccaynr (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You might also notice that the other two sources are in the "blog" sections of the news. With regard to Inside Hook, it's not really about whether something happened, but the due weight thing. I don't have strong opinion on it either way but would prefer omitting over not. Graywalls (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The other two sources are reviews of the bacon maple ale published by news organizations. Beccaynr (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

MOS:POPCULT

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)

It is very, very trivial. Graywalls (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

It is an episode with its own article; and the text is part of the prose narrative of the history of the company, sourced to independent sources. There are other television appearances not mentioned in the article that I think can be considered trivial because they only seem to be passing mentions in occasional sources; but this is a notable episode in a notable show, and there are two decent references with context that help support inclusion in the History section. Beccaynr (talk) 07:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also MTV Beccaynr (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Graywalls and I have gone back and forth numerous times about including information about the company being referenced/visited/discussed/etc in various television programs. See also the discussion about the Jay Leno joke above. I say the more the merrier and would like to see the return of the Television section that was removed amidst all the recent edits. Constablequackers (talk) 11:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Some should be considered, but absolutely oppose "more the merrier". It's an encyclopedia rather than sensationalism, so "in the media" "in movies" should be limited according to WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:TRIVIA. Graywalls (talk) 16:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr:, I restored the Simpsons one, although tripped out the portion about Shannon and maple donut appearing that appears to be rather sensationalism coverage. Graywalls (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The Portlandia content seems to be supported by enduring coverage related to the company, based on what I had found and added, so I think it should be restored; I'm not going to have much time in the next few hours to participate here, but I did want to mention (and can try to expand on later) my thoughts on developing content as I research and review sources - I find various mentions (e.g. Simpsons, Bourdain, Portlandia) and then I conduct further research; if I find further, detailed coverage, this seems to tend to support inclusion; as a side note, I do not recall any mention of the Leno joke in sources during my review.

Overall, I think particularly with company articles, we should be particularly thoughtful about the application of MOS:POPCULT, e.g. avoid a general Television section (e.g. see WP:BROCHURE and WP:STRUCTURE), and instead incorporate prose content in existing, relevant sections supported by independent, reliable, secondary sources. Beccaynr (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

direct quotations

"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)

I think with contentious subject matter, quotes are often better than attempts by editors to summarize; also, when a quote has been quoted by two sources, it seems to have further weight for inclusion as a quote. Like I said above, I do not have time right now to participate here; I'm responding quickly because this broad section seems to address multiple aspects of the article, including a contentious aspect.

Also, I think having so many parts of this article up for discussion in overlapping sections at once is not working well; if discussions could be more organized into separate sections by topic, I think that would be helpful. Beccaynr (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no deadline. Don't feel rushed. I am not a fan of quoting he said... she said... because quotes are often used to emphasize certain view points, especially if they're free expression by the subject interviewed by the press, rather than press' summarization of what was said. Graywalls (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr:, I trimmed it down to a summarization by a secondary source. Gathering up multiple sources to blow-by-blow primary source comments is undue emphasis. Those are not in the words of secondary sources. Contents within news sources can be primary, such as quotes. Journalist's interpretation and analysis of comments based on primary source is a secondary source.

I don't know what format of discussion works good in this situation. When so many things suddenly get added, it could quickly overwhelm a single-thread discussion. Graywalls (talk) 15:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Beccaynr:, in your latest reversion, you mentioned original research in edit summary. Which part is it that you believe is original research as opposed to summarizing what was said in sources? They say stereotypical imagery is racially and culturally offensive this 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." 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." 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."

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.

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; 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)

WP:IMPARTIAL would be a reason to try to minimize direct quotation. Those quoted are obviously passionate about the matter on hand and wouldn't be impartial. Graywalls (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

These are community leaders and a journalist, and I'm not sure what in the sources or quotes indicates the speakers are "obviously passionate about the matter." One of my concerns generally is overstating the source as if it says more than what does, and I think quotes here would help avoid overstatement and understatement about the doughnut opinions.

WP:IMPARTIAL also doesn't prohibit quotes, and I think there is a difference between "heated" quotes and quotes related to contentious subject matter. In various political articles, quotes may contain gratuitous personal attacks or invective that don't seem to offer substantive opinion; for opinions on contentious matters, by contrast, I think precision (including with attributed quotes) is helpful for describing a dispute impartially. From my view, it seems formal and impartial to clearly identify and contextualize the speakers discussing the doughnuts, e.g. per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

And as I mentioned, there is other coverage to consider; past reporting includes a mention in a 2017 WaPo perspective piece about a Google Doc created in Portland that named Voodoo Doughnut as an "Appropriative Business", 2017 follow up on the Google Doc coverage by Willamette Week, and other coverage in a 2018 Wild Hunt piece titled, "Voodoo Doughnuts: just fun or the commodification of a minority religion?". My sense has been the quality and depth of this sourcing is probably not enough to help develop a Logo and brand section. But I also have not started research at the Wikipedia Library or anywhere beyond general internet searches. Beccaynr (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

But all of this is not to say that I am not considering your feedback, Graywalls; I am continuing to consider possible alternative ways to include the content from the two sources, and I am open to hearing ideas you may have. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't mind me asking, how did you come upon this article? For the longest time there wasn't much of participation. Just curious. Graywalls (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like I first edited this article on 14 December 2022 [4], which was around the time of this AfD; I recall generally looking at similar articles around that time, and I may have watchlisted this article in particular because of the labor/legal issues and the possibility of helping develop that aspect. Also, as an fyi, it will likely be at least a week before I can refocus on this discussion and article; in the meantime, I will continue to consider the content development; I also recently reviewed the essay WP:OUROWNWORDS, which may be helpful to consider in the meantime. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. The opposition in New Orleans would be more suitable in a different section, perhaps history. This is about objection by locals about the company and its practices, not their product. See https://www.salon.com/2023/07/28/voodoo-doughnut-plans-french-quarter-location-and-new-orleans-voodoo-community-isnt-thrilled/ Graywalls (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

References