Talk:Charles Shaw wine

Update

I've removed a sentence at the end that expressed opinion about the quality of Charles Shaw wine without attributing it to a notable source. Also I believe the statement about Fred Franzia having no business relationship to Franzia wines was misleading. According to my research he was formally a part of Franzia Brothers Wines before it was sold to Coca-Cola. He then left and started Bronco Wines. Frazia Brothers became simply Franzia after it was bought from Cocoa-Cola by the Wine Group. I fixed the statement to reflect this info. --Cab88 19:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Finrod61 19:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Content and link added.

I think the artice reads like an advertisement for the wine. The first paragraph (ie Charles Shaw is an example of the recent trend of economy-minded wine drinkers seeking the greatest value. In particular the brand stands out not only for the low cost, but also for the respectable packaging and semi-frequent high ratings at wine tasting events). Also the ownership section does not read like an unbiased, authoritative source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.155.104.144 (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Distributed Exclusively

It's no longer trader joe's only. They sell this wine at kroger here in Atlanta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.233.241 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You need a source for that. Bronco says it's exclusive to TJ's as does TJ's. Kroger may be reselling. Exclusively is accurate until you can find a reliable source otherwise. Drmargi (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, some states don't allow house brand wines, i think. the Trader Joe's in Portland Maine told me that Maine does not allow house brand wines, but that it's extremely common for one winery to make a bunch of dummy companies to sell their wine to. Charles Shaw is definitely available outside of TJ at least in Maine and given its popularilty Im pretty sure no one would escape detection if they were literally just buying from TJ and reselling in their own store. —Soap— 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

All you need to do, Soap, is provide a reliable source that says places other than TJ sell Charles Shaw wines. What someone told you is not good enough, and neither are your personal observations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I could take a photo or something but I'd rather not. All I can say is the website of Charles Shaw itself lists other locations: http://classicwinesofcalifornia.com/findourwines.html —Soap— 05:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Bronco makes many wines besides Charles Shaw. I do not consider their own website a reliable source, since it does not list the TJ stores where I regularly shop. A photo is not a reliable source, but a newspaper or magazine article would be, Soap. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it's a moot point because apparently the original source doesn't say it was ever exclusive to Trader Joe's in the first place. Possibly it never was. Let me know if you have any other questions. —Soap— 05:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

20/20

Wasn't there a feature on the wine almost ten years ago, just after I first heard about it? MMetro (talk) 02:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Bronco Wine Company

There is action being organized among nonprofits and bloggers to get consumers to demand Trader Joe's stores take Charles Shaw wine (made by Bronco Wine Company) off the shelves until all of its grape suppliers (particularly one that is known to have broken California laws about working in the heat--Bronco subsidiary West Coast Grape Farming) are complying in practice to every last requirement of California law about working in the heat, and preferably going beyond that out of respect for the spirit of the law.

I would like to cover this consumer action on the Charles Shaw page as a part of the brand's history, but I'm not quite sure how to phrase and format it.

I could use some help.

Thank you very much, Kitkatwp (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)KitKatWP

It sounds tricky and potentially involving a number of WP:NOT issues. You should be asking yourself if the things you wish to write are of more-or-less lasting value in an encyclopedic article about this wine brand, and if you believe that you can contribute WP:NPOV text on the matter. In particular, considering your phrases about "known to have broken California laws" (I haven't followed the issue so I don't know the facts), you should probably consider WP:LIBEL carefully. Perhaps it's easier to judge what is of encyclopedic importance at a later time, rather than when the action is on-going. Tomas e (talk) 10:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, no original research. Cite newspapers. Kingturtle (talk) 12:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper citation: http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/973298.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.193.56 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Do they plan on protesting the employment of illegal aliens? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.221.121 (talk) 20:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing comment about three-tier system

The following sentence seems misleading:

"Due to the three-tier system, in other states the price can go up to around $4."

Virtually every item, whether associated with a "three-tier system" or not, costs less money near where it's produced. It seems to me like it's misleading to say that this price discrepency is "due to the three-tier system", rather than, say, transportation costs. Could this be either explained better if it's correct, or corrected if not? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.236.194 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I took it upon myself to modify the offending statement. 169.229.11.151 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

It'd be better to have a citation, but the original reason was more correct. Transportation costs are fairly negligible; the markup from $2 to $4 in some states is due to middleman costs as a result of the three-tier system. --Delirium (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'd just like to know where I can buy "$2.00 Buck Chuck" here in Sarasota. We bring it down from Ohio when we drive up, but I.d like to get it here.§≤≥≈ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.174.142 (talk) 18:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Snopes

Disputed text

Charles Shaw wines are affectionately known as "Two Buck Chuck." Due to transportation costs and other factors, in other states the price can go up to around $4. As such, the wine is often referred to as "Three Buck Chuck" or "Four Buck Chuck" relative to the price. The price of the wine, however, does not reflect its quality. A Napa brand nominally, Charles Shaw sells for such a relatively low price because of the wine market's oversupply and the brand's economies of scale.

Added strikethrough to text not in question. Drmargi (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Currently there is a sentence and citation from Snopes in the article concerning the basis for Charles Shaw's low cost. Apparently this is controversial, so let me quote a staple of WP:V: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources." In this case, the claim is that Snopes is somehow an unreliable source that has gotten the facts wrong on Charles Shaw, but so far I see no citations to back up the claim that Snopes is wrong, or even anything detailing an alternate reason as to why the price is so low. In the absence of either of these the Snopes article wins out. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

This is where we diverge. I don't agree that Snopes is reliable; in fact a recent article from CNN (now that's reliable) Business 2.0 that includes an extensive interview with Franzia and a history of the brand proves its entry on Charles Shaw is both wrong and out of date. Snopes is respected as a collector of urban myths, yes, but also known to be wrong, incomplete or inaccurate about what is actually true. They posit the (dated) wine glut explanation, which was true in the late '90s but not now, but their sources are peripheral; moreover they fail to update their entries. If you are at all familiar with the region, you might know that aside from a very small port-style winemaking colony around Madera, all the bulkers like Gallo, Franzia, Bronco and Mission Bell grow and produce is wines to that price point. Franzia did buy up bulk wine during the glut, but only to extend wine he was making from his own vast holdings in Madera, Modesto and Stanislaus Counties. The wine glut explanation in and of itself never was the reason for Two Buck Chuck, and the proof is in the continuation of the brand long after the glut ceased to be. Given this, then, can you document that the wine glut theory is still, if it ever was, the accurate explanation using a reliable, industry or allied media source not a website listing urban myths with no knowledge of the industry? No. And until you can, you don't have a statement that is reliable to an encyclopedic standard. Drmargi (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You still have not provided any sources to counter the claim, and Snopes is a reliable source used frequently on Wikipedia. Regardless of your opinion, you don't have any justification for these edits until you come up with something other than "I declare Snopes to be wrong." Right now you're running a fine line between edit warring and outright vandalism, as you are removing well-sourced content with no real justification. Provide a citation backing your edits or move on. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Be very, very careful before making such accusations. You're on thin ice yourself.Drmargi (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Outside view

First off, reverting another good faith editor's edit and identifying it as vandalism is very poor form. I would urge caution and civility. Second, it is fair to question the reliability of any source. You don't have to "prove a negative" in doing this. Looking at the Snopes article, there are some references cited but they all seem to be at least 5 years old. I would be interested in seeing a link to the CNN business article that Dr. Margi referenced with the Franzia interview to see if this information is still accurate. I've moved the disputed text to the talk page so that we can discuss this and see what kind of consensus can emerge. At the very least if the text is re-inserted it should be clearly "branded" in the article as "Back in 2003, Snopes.com suggested that Charles Shaw was sold for so low of a price because....". We should make clear that these are the 5 year old conclusions of an internet urban legends site rather than that of a more recent newspaper report, industry magazine or wine book. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 17:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! I have always felt I was free to question the reliability of a source, particularly an undated one describing a wine glut that ended nearly a decade ago and that lacks any on-point, much less current references. I stopped with my last post because I felt the editor reverting my edit was attempting to intimidate me into starting an edit war, and I don't respond well to such things, so I walked away. I do feel it is our duty as diligent editors to question sources, particularly when they seem dated or inadequately supported. That Snopes in totality is found to be a reliable source does not mean everything in Snopes is reliable, and in this case, I believe I've demonstrated what's there is out of date and as such, not reliable. Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article Drmargi was discussing may be this one: Two Buck Chuck takes a bite out of Napa. I was quite surprised to see the term 2 buck chuck not in the article. I don't think all of that paragraph was disputed and should be returned. Rmhermen (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct - this is the article. I had some connectivity problems that kept me from doing a good rewrite, but plan to incorporate the information within as soon as I can sit down and do a good job of it. I would submit this article provides far more reliable, complete and up-to-date information than Snopes. Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Shaw wine is widely known as "Two Buck Chuck", so I agree the absence of that term in this article is disturbing. The paragraph containing that term, along with the reference to snopes.com, should be restored. I find the claim that snopes.com shouldn't be considered a reliable source because it "known to be wrong, incomplete, or inaccurate", is ridiculous. The same can be said of, say, Fox News or IMDB, which are often cited as a reliable sources (and IMDB probably has more errors than snopes, IMO). All publications make mistakes. If the snopes article in question contains its own reliable sources, then snopes is fair to cite here, although it would be preferable to dig up those other sources cited by snopes and cite them here instead. I also find the argument about outdated sources to be irrelevant. The term "Two Buck Chuck" has existed for, what, over a decade now? It makes sense that sources referencing that term should also be that old. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of confusion here. The issue is not the use of the term "Two-Buck Chuck." The issue is the question of whether Bronco prices the wine at $2 because it buys up bulk wine cheaply because we have a wine glut. That statement was never true as is (Bronco bought bulk wine to supplement its own in the late 1990's when there was a glut) yet Snopes puts it forth as the only explanation, and It is on that basis alone that I question the reliability of the source. Despite this, my attempts to be more accurate have been reverted solely because I questioned the source. I continue to maintain the statement about pricing should be framed more accurately and completely to be to an encyclopedic standard. None of my edits were ever made to remove the "Two Buck" term, nor am I questioning its existence in any way. I live in the area with the densest concentration of Trader Joe's store, and everyone knows that term. Drmargi (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I now see why the concerns about the term "Two Buck", etc. It's been removed from the article. I've restored the text that is not in question. It was only the last statement, about pricing, that was in dispute. Drmargi (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah! OK. You are right. Also, the pricing/glut sentence wouldn't need to be in the lead paragraph anyway unless it was expanded later on in the article. I will also remove the editorial opinion from the lead stating that price isn't an indicator of quality. It may be true, but it's subjective enough not to belong there. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the quality statement seeming subjective as is, although it could be supported with some evidence of how the wine was evaluated. I do think it's relevant that this can be pretty good wine (as long as you avoid the merlot) for the price, but that's hard to document objectively. As for the pricing thing, it just bugs me because as written, it suggests Bronco buys up and rebrands bulk wine from other wineries (only partially true) because we have a wine glut now (not true for some years now.) PItting that against the old "but it's sourced" standard can only serve to call the source into question, and that's where all this fuss started. Drmargi (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism tagging was a mistake for which I apologize. (I accidentally hit the wrong twinkle rollback option and apparently didn't cancel in time) Regardless, the removal was (and is) inappropriate. The information is properly sourced to a reliable source, and (this is the important part) nobody has provided a source which contradicts its claims. I have no particular attachment to the information, but it's not really fair to remove it based on an unsubstantiated claim that it is wrong. This is not a case of "proving a negative", it's simply a case of "backing up a statement"; vague reference to "some CNN article I don't have a link to" does not an argument make. Furthermore, sources do not inherently have an "expiration date". Just because information is old doesn't mean it is wrong, and we do not simply assume so in the absence of any new and verifiable sources on the topic.

Now, with that said I will admit, after having read the article in question (graciously linked to by Rmhermen) that the current situation does not match the disputed text. However, it does not negate the Snopes article, and if anything backs it up, as it matches Snopes' claim that (at least prior to the exhaustion of the wine surplus) the brand's low price was due to a wine glut. Thus I propose the following wording (or similar) be added to the article... somewhere: "The brand initially sold for such a relatively low price because of the wine market's oversupply and the brand's economies of scale. Charles Shaw has since become a well-established brand, keeping its low price despite the wine market no longer having a surplus." -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouble is, that's not all the CNN article says. It says Bronco initially supplemented wine grown and produced from its own holdings with wine purchased during the glut. At no time did it ever simply purchase bulk wine and rebrand it as Charles Shaw, which is what the Snopes reference suggests. Moreover, the wine is now produced entirely from grapes grown on its own holdings, all of which is quite clearly stated in the CNN article. If that's not included, you're still not accurate. And, I must ask, what on earth does "economies of scale" mean? That's clear as mud. Drmargi (talk) 06:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm... you're drawing a lot of conclusions that aren't part of the text or my suggestion. First, there's nothing preventing more information from the CNN article being used here; more to the point, it's a good article and I think more of its information should be integrated into the existing article text. Secondly, nothing about my suggested addition says or even implies anything about Charles Shaw rebranding bulk wine. All it says (something that both articles agree on quite clearly) is that initially it was cheap in part because there was a vast surplus of grapes and wine on the market. It doesn't say what that surplus resulted in as far as their production methods go. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion! I removed the entire paragraph because, outside of the snopes reference, it was completely unreferenced. I didn't realize it was only the one line that was being disputed. Also, I will say that Yukichigai comprised wording and referencing seems fine. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 04:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Labor Dispute

The entire section is a POV press release. It needs to be rewritten, unless Wikipedia is the proper place for press releases. If that doesn't happen, it needs the bee deleted. The *facts* surrounding the death of the farm worker are OK, but the rest in nothing more than labor union PR bullet points that reference some California law that indirectly relates to the complaint, but not to any news sources about the complaint. Completely POV. I'm going to give it a few days and then delete it. Proxy User (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the quotation marks are for in this section of the article. They seem to be a bit misplaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.165.222.168 (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This section has nothing to do with Charles Shaw wine and is related to Bronco Wine Company instead. I am going to remove this section since it is already in the Bronco Wine Company article.74.139.177.80 (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Name

‘Chuck’ is a common slang word for vomit in many English countries ... is this similar in the US ? This makes the in store advert rather amusing: Two Buck Chuck (Two Buck Vomit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:9313:B900:44CE:4463:2E4A:F6A8 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting! No, it doesn't have that meaning here, or else the marketing department would be in some hot water. "Chuck" is a nickname for "Charles". 2603:7000:8807:FFF1:7D9E:20C7:6554:D91E (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)