Talk:Street King (drink)

References are poor

So far the article has 3 references. The first two:

http://www.csdecisions.com/2012/01/09/a-shot-of-energy-3/

http://www.bevindustry.com/articles/84898-rapper-launches-energy-shot-with-philanthropic-edge

are of next-to-zero-quality primary sources that are simply the company's own PR. The third is:

http://www.globalnewshop.com/50-million-to-back-50-cents-vision-to-feed-1-billion-children-in-the-next-five-years/

and this does not look to be a source that meets the requirements to be a reliable secondary source. Without good, reliable secondary source cites this article should be deleted. Zad68 (talk) 17:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Look here: http://www.globalnewshop.com/privacy-policy-and-website-rules/ it says "Disclaimer: GLOBALNEWSHOP.COM does not store any files. Everything posted is for promotional use only." so "globalnewshop" is absolutely not a reliable news source. Therefore ALL of the references used are "primary", self-promotional and not reliable sources. Zad68 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

COI editor BKaplan87

Editor BKaplan87 appears to be a marketing employee for the company that makes this product, editor has been warned about COI edits. Zad68 (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Horowitz and HipHopDX as a source

I had removed the HipHopDX article by Steven Horowitz citing WP:SELFPUB. This edit of mine was in error in two ways:

1. The searches I did on Steven Horowitz led me to both this HipHopDX article and this CNN "iReport". CNN iReport is a self-published blog and not a WP:RS. The HipHopDX article was the same content as the iReport posting, and I assumed the HipHopDX article was a copy-and-paste from the iReport posting, and so the HipHopDX article wouldn't be a reliable source either. However, I didn't carefully look at the dates of the postings: the HipHopDX article was actually posted first on August 12, 2011 and the iReport was posted on August 15, 2011. I did a little further investigation this morning (I should have done this yesterday), and saw in the WP:RSN archives that HipHopDX is an acceptable source for basic hip hop music industry news, and I found this showing that Steven Horowitz is the news editor for HipHopDX. So the Horowitz article is an acceptable WP:RS here.
2. In my edit summary, I said HipHopDX didn't meet WP:RS per WP:SELFPUB. I meant WP:SELFPUBLISH. Steven Horowitz isn't 50 Cent and so an article by Horowitz wouldn't be WP:SELFPUB. I mean to refer to WP:SELFPUBLISH regarding my concern thinking Horowitz's posting was a blog.

The removed source has since been put back and I agree with that. Sorry for my errors. Zad68 13:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the rational and logical justification of your edit; I was a little confused initially! And yea, if it was a direct reprint that would have been unsuitable; nice work investigating the matter. Nikthestunned 14:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

No prob, silly on my part. And I see you are using a "press release" cite, I did not know that even existed! Thanks for that, will be using it. Zad68 14:54, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Neither did I until today, was just wondering what the correct approach would be... Seems to be it! Nikthestunned 15:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Philantropy apparently not ongoing

How to present this? Washington Post is out with an article related to Jackson's bankruptcy and at the end of the article indicates that no donations have been made since the initial. "So how will he help the other roughly 996.5 million kids? The short answer: with other people’s money, obviously." I propose the following:

"In 2015 following Jackson's filing for bankruptcy, questions were raised about the ongoing follow through of the philanthropy program. The Washington Post suggested that no further donations have been made and all mention of philanthropy, actual or intended, had been removed from the company's website."

Any suggested different approaches? NYFly (talk) 13:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

References

The source doesn't seem to state the above to me... It even says that the charity "won't be directly affected" actually, so seems to be contradicting the above? It reads to me like the ending is a joke at 50s expense, as opposed to any statement of fact. Nikthestunned 14:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Well the charitable organization itself won't be affected because it's part of the UN, but the charitable giving on the part of this company seems to have been affected. The combination of the Washington Post indicating that the total giving is at the same level it was 3.5 years ago and the removal of all mention of charity from the website tells me this is worthwhile to note. Agreed? NYFly (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't agree - and that constitutes original research and also perhaps some synthesis. The Post article doesn't even say anything about the current total of donations made by the company, just the total from three years ago (the same we also have here). Nikthestunned 09:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)