Talk:Joe Coulombe

Number of Pronto Stores
There is a question of how many stores Coulombe started out with: 3 or 6 stores. The Mainstreet reference states 6. Other articles state 3. He was running 6 stores under Rexall. He may only bought 3. I will leave the number at 6 for now. War17 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Year Trader Joe's Started
The MainStreet reference states TJ's started in 1967. Other articles state 1966. I will leave the date as 1967 for now. War17 18:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Pasadena
Residents of Pasadena in 1967 were well educated and underpaid professionally. This is cited in Stanford business school literature http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0602/people.shtml WLee 15:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

--fine: that is how Coulombe saw Pasadena...make it clear that is how COULOMBE saw Pasadena. Don't present it as a factual assessment of the city.


 * Is this wording OK? In 1967 Coulombe launched his first Trader Joe's in Pasadena, California, a city which he viewed as the epitome of the overeducated, underpaid customer. WLee 23:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me... Williamhurrah 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
Much of the text has been taken from the following site:

http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/bmag/sbsm0602/people.shtml

Vercillo (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There is very little source material from Joe Columbe. So published material comes from mostly one source. The paraphrasing meets the 30% change requirement. WLee (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem
There is no quantifiable percentage which must or should be changed in determing substantial similarity in the US copyright laws that govern Wikipedia. Even if there were, Wikipedia's copyright policies were written to be intentionally conservative, in order to help secure the reusability of our content around the world.

This article seems to be an unusable unauthorized derivative work of. For a few examples of close paraphrasing, consider the following:

The source says:

The article says:

The source says:

The article says:

The source says:

There are other passages that similarly follow too closely.

While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation - including both structure and language - are. So that it will not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten in the temporary space that is now linked from the article's front. The essay Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Alternatively, if the material can be verified to be public domain or permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution.

Since my internet connection is faulty at the moment, I will ask another administrator who works copyright problems to look in on this article to see if there are any questions. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So where is the other administrator input? The Wikipedia article has be around for about 3 years, and not other administrator has flagged it.

You editing is overly aggressive. There is no copyright infringement. There is very little public material on Joe Columbe. A lot of it is work of mouth. So information has to come mostly from one source. Copyright rule said that you have to change 30% of the original article. I have done that.

I will stop contributing to the Wikipedia fund until this over aggressive editing is reversed. WLee (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I asked two contributors to watch this article in my absence. No one ever asked any questions. They can't provide input for questions that aren't asked. There is no copyright rule in the United States that says that changing 30% of content makes it usable, I'm afraid. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * While I'm not an administrator, I agree with Moonriddengirl that the examples shown above are way too close to the original text and cannot be used on Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm one of those who was asked to keep an eye on this article. I made no comment here because Moonriddengirl's explanation of the problem was already very thorough and as she said, we can't answer questions that aren't asked. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Attempting to clarify a bit;


 * So where is the other administrator input? - administrators have no special authority regarding article content. We decide such issues through discussion and consensus.


 * The Wikipedia article has be around for about 3 years, and not other administrator has flagged it. There is no deadline; with articles, some get fixed quickly, some don't. We - the community - do our best. Please help.


 * You editing is overly aggressive. Through the agreed Wikipedia copyright policy; we remove possible copyright infringements, while we discuss it. This goes back to the 'no deadline' concept; as you mention, the article has existed for years, and hopefully will be around for many more – therefore, if it is absent for a short time while we sort things out, that matters very little, in the bigger picture.


 * There is very little public material on Joe Columbe. and A lot of it is work of mouth. - Exactly, and Wikipedia only uses information that can be verified, things that the reader can check for themselves, in reliable sources like newspapers and books. If the facts are not published elsewhere, then they do not belong in the Encyclopaedia, because readers cannot check them. We are a tertiary 'information aggregator', we do not do original research. There are many other websites for that sort of thing - MySpace, or whatever...where (I believe) you can write just about anything you like.

I hope this helps explain things a bit better; we do want to help, but please do understand the reasons behind the community-agreed principles.

Moonriddengirl has spent considerable time trying to explain the issues that this article faces, and advise and support fixing them; we are all here to make Wikipedia better, so please let us do that together. Thank you for your time.  Chzz  ► 05:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba (Talk) 11:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For clarity's sake, the arguments presented by User:Moonriddengirl, User:De728631, User:VernoWhitney and User:Chzz are hereby endorsed. Editors are further reminded of WP:NPA and WP:OWN. MLauba (Talk) 11:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Name
Name in summary should match the article file name. The full name is already in infobox. The birth name can be listed in Early life section. See revision with it. Suggest putting it back.SWP13 (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2020 (UTC) >>Updated.


 * You're apparently unfamiliar with protocol and a bit confused. The full legal name begins the lead in a bio. It also is placed in the "Birth name" (or "Born") field in the infobox, assuming the person never changed their name. In terms of the article title (subject), that should precisely match the name at the top of the infobox; so in this case, since Joe Coulombe is the subject (article title), it also appears at the top of the infobox. As examples, see the articles of other Joes, such as Joe Pesci, Joe Scarborough, Joe Rogan, Joe Biden, or Joe DiMaggio. Or, pick any famous person and look at their article, 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Philanthropist
I have Added the following but it has been deleted... Please insert back into article.SWP13 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Coulombe was a philanthropist. Coulombe was a donor and a Governor Emeriti at The Huntington Library, Art Museum and Botanical Gardens.


 * The relevant content has been expanded, properly sourced, and wikilinked. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Businessman vs. entrepreneur
There is a distinct difference between a businessman and an entrepreneur. Anyone in business, regardless of their role, can be a businessman. But an entrepreneur -- aside from conceptualizing, launching and opertating a business -- assumes the risk of the business. The term businessman as a descriptor is very vague, while entrepreneur adds clarity. You can Google "businessman vs entrepreneur" for more detail. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)