Talk:The Wonderful Company
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Edit history shows promotion of Wonderful products
[edit]Despite significant controversy around the Wonderful group that is indexed and documented, [1] there is no note of this. In general the tone of the article reads relatively like an advertisement and there is history of the removal of edits that are critical.
Note this edit history
Ambuzz 20:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "google search for relevance". Retrieved 16 June 2019.
Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
[edit] This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2023 and 24 March 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wcline11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: OregonBend2023.
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Water supply misinformation after the 2025 LA wildfires
[edit]The section entitled Water supply misinformation contained here has been contested by deletion 4 times since 26 January by IP users, although never with an edit summary or talk page explanation.
We can have a discussion here to discover why some editors object to what reliable sources - in this case, the Associated Press and CBS News - described the water supply from northern California as irrational public misinformation, which appeared to be politically motivated. Discussion should be here first before any edit warring. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Likely public relations editing activity
[edit]The article looks promoish to me and while reviewing edit history, I noticed the dominant authorship editor who holds 43.5% authorship as of now made an edit summary comment "Added photo provided by The Wonderful Company communications team" into a different article here which is highly suggestive of them editing on behalf of the company, but there's been no adequate explicit disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Public relations editors: You must disclose your relationship with the company, and all accounts used to make edits on behalf of the company needs to do disclosed. Graywalls (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)