Talk:Gloria Jean's Coffees

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

Doesn't read like an encyclopedia[edit]

There seems to be just blatant facts that are delineated on the page. This is simply not good enough for an article. I'm going to try and go throughout, and remove things like, hearsay (i.e. quoting individuals). It shouldn't read like journalism, and Wikipedia shouldn't contain primary research. I thoroughly suggest increasing citations to increase academic rigor. Twigfan (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overt negativity[edit]

The article is not positive. There is more bad stuff then there is good. It does not meet Wikipedia's outlines for 'positive' overviews. Rebecca Rowland 06:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the article is "bad." The section is labeled controversy, and it explains the background behind it. Just because a group is involved in a controversy doesn't make the group bad, nor does discussing it make the article bad. The reader takes from it what they will. --Tandalo 19:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, Rebecca, but what 'outlines' are you referring to? I'm unfamiliar with anything which supports the particular interpretation of WP:NPOV you seem to be calling for here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Rebecca, there isn't really much "information" here. The article is just like saying "this is a pen". A pen is used to write. The problems with the pen is that it sometimes screws up. Sometimes, when an exam is approaching, the pen stops working. it isn't really helpful ;) Danielle Cooley 10:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance of "relationship" with Mercy Ministries, Hillsong[edit]

How is this a criticism? And where is the reference?

Another criticism is sourced from the charity with which Gloria Jean Australia primarily supports: Mercy Ministries, a work of the Darlene Zschech (pastor of Hillsong Church).

--Scott Davis Talk 09:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to indicate a lack of neutrality. The article phrases itself so that at first glance gloria and hillsong seem unrelated, as for Mercy Ministries it might be a concern that the article describes the initiative so positively in light of abuse allegations

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23387558-2,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/they-prayed-to-cast-satan-from-my-body/2008/03/16/1205602195122.html?page=fullpage
Mrspyro (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validate the 'Controversies' section[edit]

The Controversies section needs to be validated or removed. The fact that 2 senior members of GJ's board are involved in a large church, and someone, seemingly not likeing the church, has decided the involvement is dodgey... doesn't make it a valid section. At best it makes it biased information. Biased information is discouraged by wiki. Let's put a time frame on validation or removal. say Feb 1 '09.

Anyone restoring the Controversies section would be vandilising the page after this date, and reported as such.

Grelnar (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not a member of Hillsong church but I fail to see how GJ's choosing to sponsor them (no references offered to support that claim) or that a couple of board members go to the church constitutes a "controversy".

Similarly, their decision to serve drinks in paper cups, while not necessarily being the best thing in term of wastage created, should be supported by a link to media or other sources that show this as a "controversial" topic. And I wonder the relevance of "Seating is provided for those who wish to consume their drinks and snacks in house" as a "controversy"...

Just some thoughts. --58.173.113.203 (talk) 10:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding foundation?[edit]

Just looking around on the internet, I'm not sure this article is entirely correct.
So far I've found two claims as to the founders of Gloria Jeans Coffee:
1) Gloria Jean Kvetko, 1979 (Chicago,USA)
2) Jireh International, 1996 (Sydney, Australia)
Which one is which?
http://www.gloriajeans.com/t-gloriaJeansStory.aspx (USA) says it was founded in 1979.
http://www.gloriajeanscoffees.com.au/pages/content.asp?pid=9 (Australia) says it was founded in 1996.
Both companies use the same logo. Is Gloria Jeans an American company and not an Australian company as the article states?

Answer: Gloria Jean's Coffees was founded by Gloria Jean Kvetko in 1979 in Chicago, USA. In 1996 Gloria Jean's Coffees was introduced into Australia by Jireh International Pty Ltd. Jireh International Pty Ltd is a wholly Australian owned company. Jireh International Pty Ltd holds the the right to franchise the rights Gloria Jean's Coffees in Australia, and in 2005 purchased the rights to the Gloria Jean's Coffees brand for all international countries (with the exception of the USA and Puerto Rico).

Fair use of photographs[edit]

Irvine photo & Mercy Ministries reference[edit]

I have moved the Peter Irvine photo to the section in which he is mentioned, and restored the Gloria Jean's overall logo to the top of the page. This is because the Gloria Jean's logo is relevant to the entire article while the Irvine photo is only relevant to one section.

I am not convinced that the Mercy Ministries/irvine reference is worth including in this article at all, and would be interested in the views of others.Euryalus 06:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good move on the picture changing. I personally think the Mercy Ministries stuff is worthwhile information about the organisational ethos of GJ, or at least in upper management. As such I think it should be kept. While it's not directly relevant to the operation of the stores it is something I initially heard as an urban legend (i.e. that GJ was owned by Hillsong) and it's useful to have wikipedia to clear that up. My two cents. mjec 09:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Gloria Jeans.jpg[edit]

Image:Gloria Jeans.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious anti-Gloria Jeans POV tone of the article and the ACL conection[edit]

I note the ACL's Make It Count event for which the $30,000 donation was made, from the reports, included the following topics: indigenous welfare, refugees, climate change, maintaining the status of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, chaplaincy, sexualisation of children, protection for genuine refugees, border protection, media classification, school chaplains, working towards a more moral, compassionate and caring society. Who knows the actual motivation for the Gloria Jeans donation? Bdoublehume (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bdoublehume: There is a Brisbane Mail reference that I can see has been deleted several times - by yourself - that illustrates the rather odd preoccupation that the ACL has with the Gays. <http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/christian-lobby-analysis-reveals-strong-gay-focus-20120608-2017g.html In fact, their total activity (statements / press releases / web updates) about gays outweighs the number of mentions of other issues (such as those you stated) - COMBINED.... Was the donation to ACL about these other issues and nothing to do with the anti-gay agenda of the ACL... statistical logic would suggest not. 123.2.31.231 (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


POV template[edit]

I have no connection with Gloria Jeans or Hillsong. I am only interested in Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopedia. This Wikipedia page is no longer an encyclopedia - it has become a platform primarily for anti-Gloria Jeans propaganda. Five comments 1 It appears the alleged 'good things' done by Gloria Jeans are not reported. Maybe it is a measure of humility by those who give and those who receive. Within Wikipedia these 'good things' have become the subject of numerous legalistic [citation needed] tags. 2 Conversely, that which is deemed as 'Gloria Jeans negative' is very widely circulated by social media and laundered and reported on sympathetic blogs - masquerading as news sources. These are then detailed, with citations, on Gloria Jeans Wikipedia. 3 To me it is sad when (worthy) third parties are dragged in and made to pay eg RU OK and WithHeart. In industrial relations these types of actions are termed 'secondary boycotts'. Secondary boycotts are banned under sections 45D to 45E of the Australian Trade Practices Act. 4 There is now a significant component of the article relating to recent criticism. 5 All this just compromises Wikipedia as an authoritative NPOV reference source. AltonKane (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • AltonKane: A few points : 1. As one who is 'only interested in Wikipedia as an NPOV encyclopedia, I would have thought that having all claims backed up by references would be exactly to your desires... There are indeed many unsubstantiated claims of charity work and support in this article that are without reference (as opposed to the highly referenced 'controversies' section). If they can't be referenced, it goes without saying that they should be removed. If this 'makes you sad' perhaps it would be a good idea to locate said references and inserting them in the article.

2. You make a claim of Blogs Masquerading as news. Here are the references listed on the gloria Jeans page:

BRW Magazine / Sydney Monring Herald / Brisbane Times / Sydney Star observer (published since 1979) / Official Government Pages / High Court Documents ... Your claim is both incorrect and is defamatory to the above papers & institutions. Admittedly the final reference 'equallovecampaign' is potentially open to be challenged - though the article itself is referenced from 'the punch' - a valid reference. Perhaps a simple move from one reference to the other solves this.

3. There is no secondary boycott evident or discussed in the article.... RU OK is only mentioned in reference to Headspace distancing itself. Further detail such as uncomfortable ties to organisations linked to queer youth suicide has until now been left off the page. As for reference to the Trades Practices act & industrial relations... That just seems very VERY Off topic - and an attempt to manipulate any potential reader - not unlike 'makes me sad'. Cold hard fact may be a better approach. The With Heart has tag incident is indeed unfortunate - it will be studied in many a media training school for many years - but alas it did happen, hence forms part of the companies history and deserves to be on wikipedia. 123.2.31.231 (talk) 04:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note with interest that the entire 'environmental' section of the page is without reference. With rampant deletion of non referenced claims in the ACA / Hillsong section, does it not stand to reason to delete the entire environmental certification section unless a reference is provided? 121.127.217.187 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gloria Jean's Coffees. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gloria Jean's Coffees. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Objection and judicial complaint[edit]

I was in one of your branches today and this is the case of the table I was sitting on and it made a big wound on my hand that led to my admission to the hospital Please apologise, or I will go to court 213.6.24.82 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gloria_Jean%27s_Coffees&oldid=1202321791"