Talk:Cheer cheese

message: I notice that a certain name was removed and replaced by another. The original name is back in the news again, as since the grandstand that he was fighting against is now being demolished for rebuilding, he intends to take up the cheese cudgel again.
Coon cheese next on anti-racism hit-list
September 26, 2008, 1:01 pm
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5042301/coon-cheese-antiracism-hitlist/
I'll also comment that there has been a large amount of vandalism against this page, I expect more in future.
FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing Protest against cheese name - notable updates 

message: Process for ripening cheese. 
Document Type and Number:. United States Patent 1579196. 
Inventors:. William, Coon Edward. 
Publication Date:. 03/30/1926 
www.freepatentsonline.com/1579196.html 
FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coon Patent for cheese ripening Number 1579196 03/30/1926 

message: Note: "The case was brought to court by Stephen Hagan, an ATSIC regional councillor from Toowoomba, west of Brisbane, who has also campaigned unsuccessfully for a ban on the name Coon cheese." from the link http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/03/19/1016519809826.html
I don't know where the name "Sir Tomas Jackson" came from except blatant (humourous) vandalism - the name seems obviously a joke to me (Aussie) as very few such Commissioners would have been Knighted! Indeed part of a significant area of complaint was that such individuals were often excluded from 'normal society'.
I note that a Google of that name reveals http://au.messages.yahoo.com/news/top-stories/1256880?p=last which has been deleted - nothing else relvant. A search of Wiki under both Sir Tomas Jackson & Sir Thomas Jackson reveals nothing relevant to the time period.
I will replace the name if no other comments and/or supporting verification are made.
FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong Name attributed - error or vandalism? 

message: There hasn't actually been a court case regarding Coon cheese yet - the Age article says that Stephen Hagan 'campaigned' about the name but only brought a court case against the 'Nigger Brown' sign.
BedeWilson (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction re court case 

message: I found this scan of a page from a 1923 edition of The Journal & Republican, Lowville, NY which has an article announcing that E.W. Coon of Philadelphia, maker & shipper of cheese, sold 5 milk plants to the Dairyman's League Co-operative Association. This strikes me as a pretty strong rebuttal to Stephen Hagan's assertion. I'm not sure how to work it into the article so I'm leaving that to soemone else. http://fultonhistory.com/Process%20small/Newspapers/Lowvile%20Ny%20Rebulican/1923/Newspaper%20Lowville%20NY%20Journal%20Republican%201923%20-%20%28294%29.PDF  —Preceding unsigned comment added by The axel (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pretty conclusive. It remains unanswered, however, whether the Coon business used a stereotypical image of a black man's face on their packaging, as Hagan claims.  Given this evidence, this would have been a pun (like Birdseye) rather than the origin of the name.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The most relevant fact in all of this is that there is a patent for a type of cheese processing called Cooning by a guy called Coon. On that basis alone the supposed racist aspect is invalid and makes me question the relevance of including a section on disagreement by Hagan. I note that he didn't really win the argument over the  E. S. “Nigger” Brown Stand; rather the name went away when the stand was demolished and replaced. Efficacious (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Existence of Edward Coon

message: This article is making business history claims based on original research, there are few secondary sources. 60.242.186.80 (talk) 13:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR/Primary 

message: The article gives EW Coon's middle name as both William and Willie. Which is it?
:Coon cheese is named after its American creator, Edward William Coon (1871–1934) of Philadelphia, who patented a method, subsequently known as the Cooning process, for fast maturation of cheese via high temperature and humidity.[1][2][3][4][5] Former manufacturer Kraft, and later Dairy Farmers and National Foods, have vigorously defended the trademark.
:"E. W. Coon was the grandson of Amherst Coon (1795–1877), a farmer born in Russia, New York, who married Sally Betsey Treat in 1822. His sons Mattison (b. 1823) and Ephraim Coon (b. 1832) were described in 1893 as having been in the butter and cheese business together at 29 South Water Street, Philadelphia, for more than thirty years. Ephraim's son Edward Willie Coon was born on 30 July 1871, and had taken out at least one cheese patent by 1912.
''
-- PaulxSA (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  William or Willie 

message: There are several issues with this article
:1) coon.com.au is too closely connected to the subject to be used as a primary source, especially when there is a plethora of newspaper accounts of Edward W. Coon.
:2) The article reads like a biography of Edward W. Coon, not an article on 'coon cheese'
:3) There is no explanation of how 'coon cheese' was exported to Australia (or if it ever was). I can find that Edward W. Coon exported his product to England before a fire destroyed one of his factories. This led to a legal battle with the fire insurance company which ended just a few years before Coon's death. In 1923 he sold "a number of his plants" around Cape Vincent, New York to a local dairy co-operative. What (if any) connection does Edward W. Coon have to Australian 'coon cheese'?
:4) There appears to be an edit war over the accusations of racism by Stephen Hagan.
—Brian Halvorsen (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of the page as it is currently? Regards, 220 of ßorg 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Coon cheese. 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/20130904174054/http://www.coon.com.au/story.html to http://www.coon.com.au/story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: :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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: Not moved per WP:SNOW. Please wait to file another move request until after the change in branding has been done and, more importantly, picked up by reliable secondary sources.   (t · c) buidhe 00:02, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Coon cheese →  – In line with the change of brand name effective July 2021 this page will require moving to the new name. As per usual move practices a redirect will be automatically created from the current name. This notice is posted in discussion for the reason that a move may not be appropriate until this time, and that this move may be considered controversial by some users. Matthew5of9 (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

text: This is one of the most unusual first edits I have ever seen. A move is NOT appropriate at this time. There is no reason for this request for over 6 months. • I'd also argue the page should be moved to CHEER cheese. 220 of ßorg 14:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, , I agree about the lowercasing (see previous section). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 January 2021 

message: See recent reverts. IMO it is relevant and notable that Hagan, an academic and one of the main protagonists in the debate, has published a book. It is not being used as a source (although I would imagine that it provides more relevant information), is mentioned in multiple sources - mainly paywalled unfortunately - and is clearly an indicator of the strength of feeling as well as the fact that there is research to indicate the lack of relationship of Coon to the cheese. I would like to hear from other editors on this. As always, happy to accept consensus view. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Naming controversy" is a significant part of this article, and an even more notable event in Australia. If the instigator of that controversy publishes a book on that subject, it ought to be mentioned in that section. The release of that book has been mentioned in several parts of Australian mainstream media. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:32, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is "research to indicate the lack of relationship of Coon to the cheese", then that actual research should be added sourced to independent reliable sources, rather than name-dropping a self-published book to make that implication. If secondary sources mention Hagan's research from the book, then that could be added and simply attributed to Hagan where necessary. Paywalls shouldn't matter, as sources do not need to be freely accessible to be considered reliable. The book's publication is relevant to the author's article, but I'm not seeing how the simple publication of a book means "it ought to be mentioned" in an article about the company just because there is a controversy that the book discusses. Under that criteria, many articles about notable events could mention the name of numerous published books, even hundreds of books listed simply for the fact that they were published. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only mentioned that they were paywalled because I don't have access to them. If any editor has access to The Australian, Herald Sun or any number of other Murdoch sources, the information may be easily extracted. Also, , re wp:primary sources, there is no problem with using an historical document such as a patent: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia,...  A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". It seems clear that the actual patent is the best descriptor of the process. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you want to discuss a topic other than the book by Hagan and Rogers, I think it would be better to start a new section or else it will get too difficult to follow. I did not remove the cite to the patent website, but I did remove information I felt was WP:UNDUE and excessively detailed , and added a tag that a secondary source should be found as those are preferable. Regarding paywalled sources, if you do not have access to certain sources, then I am not sure how you know what is in them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . Sure - I have no argument with the excessive detail, just that the details of the patent (date, etc.) are unlikely to be found elsewhere. My view of the paywalled sources was from the Google previews. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

text: I added the book name to the existing sentence from Rogers's article about their research, although it is still sourced to a primary source written by one of the book's authors. , if a web search turns up so many sources about the book's research, then you should add those sources to the article. The only independent source in the edit you linked to mentions the book once and does not discuss the book's research. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Hagan's book