Talk:Celestial Seasonings

Lists
Just as a comment, this article is a bit too much list and not enough about the company. FlagSteward 14:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Trivia Section
After reading this section, I think it should be cut from the article. Honestly, much of it doesn't add a whole lot about the actual company. Secondly, much of the information is unsourced, making it unreliable information. Finally, by Wikipedia standards, trivia sections are strongly discouraged. All in all, pending discussion to the contrary I will remove this section. 12.178.70.162 21:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This section ("references in media") is unreferenced and long overdue for removal. I have removed it. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Valentine's flavors?
My local grocery store has two Celestial Seasonings flavors- Vanilla Strawberry Rose and I forget the other one- in their Valentine's display. I don't know if these are holiday-only blends, but I'd never seen them before so that's the category I put the first one under. 216.170.23.235 (talk) 23:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-edit: And that's when I realized it'd probably be on the website. It is indeed a holiday flavor, and the other one is Chocolate Raspberry Bliss- now that I think about it, I remember wondering how chocolate tea worked. 216.170.23.235 (talk) 23:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Racial Slur
I was wondering if anyone thought it appropriate to chime in on the use of celestial in the name, an obvious reference to Asia and Asians. I guess of course this would need citing from either the company itself or a group representing Asian people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.175.193 (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * non-sense: it means Heavenly (that's quite clear), political correctness has gone too far in some places on this earth Markthemac (talk) 00:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that term has (had?) that meaning in Australia, I'd never happened to see mention of it in North America until this talk section. Two points about that, the Boulder, Colorado based company started in 1969 was likely started by, shock, horror, some hippies, known for being sometimes attracted to mystical or new-agey names (as the page mentions it started as a company member's nickname), and also Celestial Seasonings has been more known for their herbal teas or tisanes which are an alternative to orthodox tea & green tea (Camellia sinensis) which is the tea China and Asia are most strongly known for.


 * Herbal teas may first have become popular in America when the American revolution cut off or greatly reduced the former colonists' access to trade in Asian tea. And in the 1960s and 70s herbalism I think became trendy possibly because of hippies again or the expanding health food market. So if they weren't even focused on selling imported tea, why would they name their homemade, independent products after Asians? As some kind of misplaced insult even? I don't think there was a universal orthodox tea embargo in the 1970s. I remember seeing part of some business documentary where a founder of the company described how they would pick the herbs for their teas themselves, pack them in burlap sacks and tie them closed with surplus wire. If the founders thought so little of the idea of tea as to consider naming their company after a slur towards the people of a major tea region of the world (who hadn't even wronged them), I'd hypothesize they would then be people who weren't interested in any form of tea and wouldn't have bothered to start a tea company at all, especially not one where they were scrounging up the supplies to start it. Company or product names can just make occasional unexpected impressions when they expand to other countries, translations between languages provide many examples. Whitebox (talk) 13:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

POV pushing and unreliable sources
I've deleted the entire "controversies and health concerns" section as all of the references contained there are not WP:RS compliant. Even if reliable sources could be found that discuss this topic, there is a very real issue of WP:UNDUE. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I would like to recommend against removing entire sections. If they have problems, there should be a template added to emphasis this. Secondly, it's unbalanced to have an unsourced section claiming their products are guaranteed organic while having a critical section removed.

Lastly, if the sources are stating facts, then they should be kept. The fact is Eurofins Scientific did indeed publish a report regarding celestial seasonings, so it IS notable. Another fact is there IS indeed a lawsuit occurring against Hain Celestial. There is no evidence against these things. So given all those, i think it's relevant to include them. If you remove the criticism, the article is nothing short of a promotion which I should remind is against WP policy. Issues with sources can be marked and there is a template for this I believe.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If sources such as this were posted, I understand. But this source, a document of the court case which is clearly a reliable source. What's more is I already explained that these reports are claiming something both factual and notable.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The sources are unacceptable. You can't source an entire "criticism" section to a single court case. Please stop reinserting controversial negative claims sourced to blogs and unreliable sources. If there are unsourced claims being made that you feel are promotional then remove them (I have done so). As for the comment regarding "placing of templates", I prefer to fix obvious problems instead of dropping templates into articles which will then be ignored for years. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

They will not be ignored as I am here to discuss them, but for now since you insist on removing something that is factual and is indeed a notable controversy, I am removing unsourced claims promoting this company.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm no big fan of Celestial Seasonings, but I question the relevance of this paragraph: "Hain Celestial Group was one of 25 companies named in a 2013 class action lawsuit overall allegations of mislabeling its products (which included Celestial Seasonings) under California law.[10] The company reached a settlement in 2015, paying $7.5 million in compensation with an additional $2.4 million worth of coupons to consumers.[11]" Nothing in footnote 10 indicates that Celestial Seasonings products were part of the lawsuit or settlement, and footnote 11 is a dead link. In fact, the source quoted in footnote 10 at least implies that the suit was about false claims that products were organic, and to my knowledge Celestial Seasonings has never claimed that its teas are organic. This paragraph thus either needs to be MUCH better researched, or eliminated entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8800:CF50:389D:8F79:CC4A:F5C9 (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The blogs that have been quoted in the article are clearly not RS and we should not rely on them. The court case records, on the other hand, probably are reliable. They are also WP:PRIMARY and should be used only with great care. Would anyone care to try to produce a version that gives a concise and reliable account of the section last removed at this edit? Just a hint, it would be wise to have at least one reliable secondary source as well. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. If the court case an at least one reliable secondary source can be found then the section can be re-written appropriately and put back in. I would not agree to it being reinserted wholesale, however.
 * Taeyebaar, I already removed the unsourced claims you're referring to so I'm not sure what you mean. The article now just covers the company in a fairly minimal way and has no controversial language, which is probably the way it should be. Insisting on inserting any kind of "controversy" section gives the appearance of POV pushing so unless it's properly sourced as Richard Keatinge mentioned, it needs to stay out. In addition to notability, WP:V and WP:RS are policies we need to adhere to. Kindzmarauli (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You have already removed the promotional language, I'm OK with the content now. I will try to get a hold of the report of pesticide, but I'll be sure to mention it's by Eurofins before putting it in. The court case reports will then be added. Only in this case if it's enough then it the statement should base it on the case files.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of the promotional language seems to have crept back in over the past 9 years: "iconic" artwork, etc. Someone who is not affiliated with the company (and who is not a big fan) but knows the facts should do some culling. Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Dscontinued
Needs a list of current & discontinued flavors 2601:601:D480:538B:5D6:9C17:D119:859E (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2022 (UTC)