Talk:Corby Spirit and Wine
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
editThis article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Company Name
editThe company was re-named Corby Spirit and Wine Limited in 2013 (as is already reflected in the article page), so the title should probably change to reflect that as well. I have previously had a financial conflict of interest with Corby, though no longer work with them, so wanted to bring up this suggestion on the talk page before making any edits to avoid the appearance of impropriety. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. Lang weir (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Churnalism
editPR Newswire is a a distributor of press releases. Clearly this https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sazerac-company-announces-the-purchase-of-selected-brands-and-manufacturing-facility-130699738.html is not published by an independent, reliable source and hence unsuitable as a source.
Supposedly, Global News is an independent, reliable source. Notice how similar this https://globalnews.ca/news/159771/corby-distilleries-sells-montreal-plant-17-brands-to-sazerac-for-32-9-million/ is to the press release? That's churnalism. Vexations (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Vexations wouldn’t they have similar article titles since they are describing the same thing, that along with a bunch of other sources, aside from PR Newswire and Global news? There’s only so many creative ways to say Company A bought/Acquired Company B? Right? Here are some other sources that describe the exact same event.
- MissTofATX (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX
- Not the same thing at all. The issue is not that they're describing the same event, they regurgitate the same source (the subject talking about itself). There is no critical analysis whatsoever. AFAIC, it's a dereliction of journalistic duty and gross lack of intellectual independence. This has been said already, but it bears repeating. Vexations (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
- What is AFAIC? I do see your point for many other things, however, these press releases about acquisitions are hardly break through investigative journalism. There aren’t any open ended questions to ask (that I see, at least), or interviews? It appears to me that these are just a variation of a public notice you would would see in a newspaper, and if you scoured the financial statements of this company to learn about the acquisitions.
- In this specific instance, what would be a motivation for churning free information?
- MissTofATX (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)MissTofATX
- Sorry, AFAIC is internet slang for "As far as I'm concerned". With regards to the motivation for "churning free information", our article makes that perfectly clear: money. If I could have my way, all such sources would be rejected, in favour of original reporting by news media that fact check what they publish. I think that's worth pointing out. I hope that one day we will see consensus that Wikipedia needs to adopt a policy to that effect. Until then, it would be worthwhile to have a good look at WP:NCORP and see how this article measures up to the guideline. Vexations (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2018 (UTC)