Talk:POM Wonderful

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Acres[edit]

Is it 6,000 or 12,000 acres? The Boston Globe gives 12,000 but other sources list 6,000. Badagnani 09:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 14,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.167.62 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it correct to say that most of the acres are near the city of San Jose, California? That's what I think was stated on the Food Channel segment. I'm not sure how close San Jose is to the San Joaquin Valley. Badagnani 23:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still need an answer on this one. Badagnani (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the acreage all together as it seemed to serve little insight, was not reliably cited, and is old and stale info. Perhaps there's a case to include the acreage again. Is it notable? Can we even VERIFY the current acreage controlled by POM it as its likely proprietary corporate information?Retran (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikify[edit]

In addition to correctly formatting the inline references, the introduction should be organized per WP:LEAD. --Ronz 20:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never liked footnotes in WP articles and prefer the links as we have them; it's one fewer click to get to the source. Badagnani 20:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are definitely some minuses to having the references formatted. I'll get around to formatting them eventually if no one does before I get a chance. Without the references being properly formatted, it's impossible to tell references from inline external links (which should be moved to the External links section) or from linkspam (which should be removed immediately). Further, it's extremely hard to tell if the article is properly sourced, let alone written in a neutral and balanced way. --Ronz 22:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've worked hard on this one. Badagnani 22:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikified all the inline cites and added a reflist. Removed dead cites and added [citation needed] templates (and left notes in the edit version so they can be retraced). Geoff (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's much better to find replacements for removed links than to just remove them. Badagnani (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional Problem[edit]

This article seems to have a serious issue with WP:NPOV. The more I scrutinize the text of each section the more trouble I see. Many of the citations lead to product promotional pages. Does anyone know where all the research results are at? POM says there is scientific research backing many of the claims, and one of the attributes of science and the scientific method is the mandatory public nature of it. This 33 million in research results must be floating around somewhere for me and other editors to cite instead of relying primarily on promotional material (which seems to fly in the face of WP:NPOV)??? Can someone let us know?? Retran (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:NPOV I have cleaned up some sentences that were extremely promotional in nature (like having superlatives in a description a product, event, or purported health benefit). There's tons more to do unfortunately :( Can I get some help? In the meantime I've tagged it with {advert}. Don't remove it without piping up here in talk or I'll be liable to place it back if nothing has been addressed (either in the article or in talk). I'm willing to hear a fellow editors pitch on why there is not an advert problem here. If promotional stuff gets to be a really big persistent problem I will start whining to folks higher up at wikipedia. And I'll even consider embarrassing you.Retran (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a description of the extraction process that was gushing with unnecessary superlatives and promotional descriptors. Things such as "farming the land"... (obviously promotional phrase... what point is "the land" part but to make it seem more small-time and personable. where else are things farmed? outer space?) among other things (see the revision history for all nitty gritty, and pipe up if you disagree about it being promotional! Retran (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Corporation Section I had to remove orphan sentence without context in this section, seems to be spurious plug for an episode of some TV show on the FOod Network. Perhaps it was a great event for company executives but not encyclopedicly noteworthy in my opinion. And if it IS in fact noteworthy, it does not belong in the "Corporation" section.Retran (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the introduction I removed a set of questionable superlatives and un-referenced claims... "advertised as one of the most powerful naturally-occurring antioxidants sources". While its technically factual they are advertised as such, the advertising is up to the POM LLC folks and this is not a place promote their product here in the encyclopedia. And I also removed sentence about the taste of their juice being like cranberry, as I have previously written a REFERENCED taste comparison in the Procurement and Processing section. I also removed the link to "Roll International Corporation" as it seems that wikipedia article does not exist, and if it does exist someday we can add that link back in. I did leave the text intact. I reduced the biography of the founder and history of the corporation to its dispassionate noteworthy essentials.Retran (talk) 19:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I decided on removing the entire "External Links" section due to the fact there were only two POM promotional oriented websites, and they are already linked to in this article several times at several different levels, including the big box on the upper right in the "website" line.Retran (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the text has been reworked, section by section, I have removed the Advert tag. Please someone help add more content as it was mostly promotional before.Retran (talk)

Do we even need the animal testing controversy section any more?Retran (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Citations[edit]

Seemingly somewhat related to the "Promotional" problem in this article there is a big problem with citations. I've followed up on a few citations which do not lead to a reference of the information at hand.

For instance, there was a sentence or two about POM being "the only vertically integrated 'player' in its field". This is a claim that requires some sort of expert citation, and there was a citation (see past revisions) to this Boston newspaper article: http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2006/12/10/pomegranate_sows_seeds_of_popularity/

Problem is, I cannot find where this news article details anything about POM wonderful's fruit procurement strategy, let alone a business analysis statement on its level of "vertical integration". I am not personally an authority to judge wheather it is or not based on this information, and this is an encyclopedia... an assemblage of notable information, not a place to produce new information or analysis (or promotion!). I am not going to even put the [citation needed] on this as its too suspect given the rest of the problems on this article that its a promotional statement. That's my two cents. If any editors feel differently on this particular issue pipe up on talk and/or justify your edits in comments.Retran (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Products[edit]

In revamping the text of the products section, I found it quite confusing the bit about "fresh pomegranates (which are available only when in season)" since its in the context of blended fruit products. That existing text seemed only re-emphasize the point that pomegranates are picked and process when "fresh"? Otherwise was the existing text implying that the juice blends and pomegranate juice products only available during harvest season?? I don't think that's the case as its an always available product. So my conclusion is that its promotionally re-emphasizing the "freshness" factor, in violation of WP:NPOV.Retran (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The word "infused" used to describe its tea product does not seem to be particularly informative or dispasionate, another marketing term I feel. Especially given there is no citation from a reliable source asserting this "infusion"!Retran (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the extra section on containers seems to be superfluous as it contains mostly promotional material as well, going into great tedious description of the shape of bottles and the fact that glass containers can be reused. So I moved the sentences info to the same paragraph at the top, and we have no loss of information!Retran (talk) 19:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because POM Wonderful claims antioxidants are in their product doesn't mean that it is actually effective in vivo. After consumption, the chemicals as mentioned in the article Pomegranate are metabolized and rapidly excreted. There needs to be more clarification on the actual effectiveness or the words in the article can easily give readers an incorrect inflated impression of product benefits.AnimeJanai (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Animal Testing[edit]

I have condensed the animal-testing section to ensure its not longer than the rest of the article sections (that would make it seem more notable). The controversy seems to have passed and I wonder how notable it still is, but none the less I kept it all and condensed it as best I could to the most pertinent and referenced facts, trying to be encyclopedic and not just "tell a story". Any editors out there lend a hand on this?Retran (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


So many companies do animal testing, and do they have a substantial portion of their article devoted to it? The problem is it places undue emphasis. I notice an editor (from the history notes) feels that "it's important no matter if its in the past"... I suppose that would be true from an activist standpoint, but not from an encyclopedic standpoint. There are places on the web such things are cataloged and archived, but wikipedia is not that sort of place. The size of this section places undue emphasis on this topic, and other companies do not have equivalent sections (including best-of articles). It's my opinion that it should be removed. Retran (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

since my proposal has not been contensted I am going to be bold and remove this section once again. If it gets reverted again by an anonymous user without proper explanation on this discussion page I will have to request semi-protection for this article. I will again assert that there is undue influence on this topic (Animal Testing). Despite my personal feelings are on the topic, and the fact I authored the current revision of this section, I feel its current inclusion clearly violates the neutrality doctrine important to Wikipedia's encyclopedic credibility. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to serve as historian detailing animal testing activities any particular company, as was suggested in a previous anonymous edit summary. This is a relatively small company at that, and a small article. As written this section gives me the impression of undue weight. Another important aspect here is to examine Wikipedia's Featured articles of similar companies (or any company) that has engaged in (or even currently engages in) animal testing. They don't even include mentions of it, for whatever reason. I assume its been hashed out already in discussion boards that its an activist topic that's best left to informational channels that are more suited to that purpose (ie: not encyclopedias)... things like blogs, social networking, etc. Retran (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To summarize, I am removing this Animal Testing section once again, and will request some administrative remedy if my change is reverted without discussion, especially if done by an anonymous or non-established user. (The "Edit summary" does not provide enough room to discuss any of the points I bring up, it's "tweet size" and these are "forum size" discussion points.) Retran (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Animal Testing section, and added a summary sentence in the intro paragraph of the Research section: "POM Wonderful has sponsored research which in some cases involved animal testing but has not engaged in the practice since June of 2007.". If anyone disputes this change, it's best to discuss it here before submitting a change. If another anonymous or unestablished user reverts this change I will do my best to request administrative action (semi-lock protection) on this article for the sake of its credibility. Retran (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 August 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. As Calidum quotes, the proposed title must actually be used in reliable sources for it to mean it should be changed per MOS:TM. While it may be the case that it is, it certainly has not been proven in this discussion and so the consensus is not to move. Jenks24 (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


POM Wonderful → Pom Wonderful – I propose renaming the article, from POM Wonderful to Pom Wonderful. This would follow the Wikipedia manual of style, where the name and text of an article should follow the regular rules of English capitalization, even if the brand name is commonly spelled with all upper case letters. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#All caps, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Trademarks, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks for the guidelines. If the name was pronounced "Pee Oh Em Wonderful", that would be different, but it's pronounced "Pom Wonderful". A classic example of an article that follows the Wikipedia style guideline is Spam (food), which follows regular capitalization rules even though the brand name is commonly spelled SPAM with all capitals. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Zefr (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MOS:TM/MOS:CAPS not an acronym; seems to be a truncation of "pomegranate" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a corporate name, not a product name that entered common vernacular. Precedent: IBM.--Froglich (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that POM is a corporate name but one apparently chosen for marketing emphasis which is not the case of IBM (the initials of the previous 3 word corporation name). Added information is that there is a valid cultivar of pomegranate called "Wonderful", so perhaps the POM in caps was used for distinction of the company's source for products. UC-Davis fact sheet:[1] If we respect the corporate officers'/owners' reason for choosing and incorporating their name as POM, then it would be undeniable the article name should be as the company intended' i.e., it's legally incorporated that way. However, Mudwater's explanation addressed this well, and my opinion remains Support --Zefr (talk) 19:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per naming conventions, the name of the page should be changed. Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 21:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here is the relevant part of MOS:TMRULES: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official,' as long as this is a style already in widespread use, rather than inventing a new one" (emphasis mine). By changing to the lowercase, we would in fact be inventing a new name because reliable sources such as CNBC Bloomberg Forbes Slate NY Times and Reuters all use POM. Calidum 00:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Calidum. POM is nearly universally referred to as such. SnowFire (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia style takes precedence over company style. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only if "Wikipedia style" is used elsewhere. In this case, it's not. Calidum 21:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:POM_Wonderful&oldid=1209808261"