Talk:Palmetto Cheese

Is this an ad.

Reads like an advertisement
This article—particularly the History section—reads like an advertisement. At first I doubted the subject's notability, but the outside sources cited seem reliable and objective enough to establish notability.

I'm usually pretty good at pruning bias out of articles, but for some reason this one stumps me. I know, though, that statements like "It was there that Vertrella Brown added the "soul" to the "pimento cheese with soul"" and "Fresh batches of Palmetto Cheese are still mixed and hand-packed by George Easterling and his crew in Pawleys Island, South Carolina" —regardless of their sources—have no place in an encyclopedia. But eliminating those two sentences would eliminate two of the article's legitimate references, and I'm not prepared to do that today. So I'm not going to edit the article now, beyond adding the tag, and hope that others will do the dirty work this time.--Jim10701 (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed it up some, since your post (2012) there have been a good number of articles written about this cheese, some as recent as this week (Oct 2017). So I think that clears up GNG. I also removed the advert tag and removed the problems you listed. S EMMENDINGER  ( talk ) 00:50, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring
The current edit warring (over what the owner may or may not have said) needs to stop. Discuss here to reach consensus, which the article should then reflect. Constantly reverting each others' edits will only get a bunch of editors blocked. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I have made some edits to this article in the edit war. While it is sourced, I no longer think that these comments that the owner is said to have made are absolutely essential to the article, and am happy to leave them out if others think that it the right thing to do. I also think that the paragraph about the company's association with the women depicted on the packaging is also unnecessary, and in an inappropriate style, particularly in its use of "we", for example. So I am happy to leave it as is, unless someone with more experience thinks otherwise, as I am still quite new to editing. Sorry for my contribution to this edit war. Swadge2 (talk) 07:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no strong feelings about the owner's comments being included; I do think it is an interesting point, but probably not absolutely necessary. I agree that the woman-on-the-packaging is largely irrelevant, other than as a very brief mention, at most (as it was written, it came across as a whitewashing exercise); in any case, some or all of it was copypasted from the company's website, so if it reappears in that format I will tag it accordingly. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

This page was protected on 31 August but as soon as the protection came off, someone put another edit on the page. How can this page be protected for longer due to the possibility of continued edit warring? Docsholiday (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

My second edit today to revert back to what the site should say. Docsholiday (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I've stumbled upon this purely by accident, but I honestly think the incident involving the owner's comments should be on there, especially now a couple of extra references have been added. It's reliably sourced, and it seems to be a pretty important incident in the brand's history. I'm not going to put it back on, but I think a little more consensus one way or the other wouldn't go amiss...Thegreatluigi (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Repackaging
Apparently, the company will remove the image Vertrella Brown from the lid. https://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/article245842825.html Kdammers (talk) 05:52, 27 September 2020 (UTC)