Talk:Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MoniqueAlden.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking
Please read WP:OVERLINK about why common terms such as 'United States', 'label' and 'sugar' should not be wikilinked. Elizium23 (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is Advertising!
This is advertising/ marketing dressed up as a article.

If the people that started this page want the world to know about Huy Fong Sriracha sauce a list of available Sriracha sauces should be made on non branded Sriracha sauces article.

This article should be deleted. Wikipedia is no a place for advertising/ marketing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starbwoy (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hold on a moment here. There are two possible situations and I am not sure which one you are describing. (1) The article may be in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view policy, by using favorable marketing terms and an overly positive view of the product. (2) The fact that the article exists to document a product that exists in the real world. Situation (1) is cause for action, situation (2) is not. The editors of these articles, in November 2011, that there was sufficient cause for splitting this off from the main sriracha sauce article. There are enough reliable secondary sources documenting the Huy Fong Foods variety, and there is enough to be written about it that this article is not a stub. There are several courses of action for you. There is no protection on this article, so you are free to improve it yourself. Where you feel the language violates NPOV, especially in the use of "peacock" terms, you can tone it down and use encyclopedic language. If you do not feel competent to improve the article yourself, you can tag it, with advert and it will be listed as needing improvement; you might succeed in attracting another interested editor who can improve it. If you really feel this article should be deleted, you can bring it to Articles for Deletion, but I think that participants in such a discussion would tell you that it can be improved rather than deleted. The fact remains that Wikipedia does document products that exist in the real world. Commercial films are all products, do you think Wikipedia should delete all articles that document them? Novels are products, delete them too? Google is a for-profit company, should we avoid documenting them? Elizium23 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I was one of the editors who was around at the time of the split. Prior to that, we had a continued problem. To Americans, the name "Sriracha sauce" appears to be synonymous with the Huy Fong version - largely because that's how it's branded, and many seem to be unaware of the generic sauce's existence outside the US. So we kept getting people writing the article as if the Huy Fong one *is* Sriracha sauce, and it was all very confusing. Even after the split of the two articles, we're still getting people editing the Sriracha sauce article as if it is the Huy Fong sauce, but at least we can now direct them to the appropriate article. So is the Huy Fong sauce notable? I think it is - at least partly because of that "Huy Fong = Sriracha" association in the US, and there do seem to be reliable sources (including recipe books written about it). Was this article overly promotional? Yes, I think it was, but Elizium23's changes have improved it significantly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

LA Times Article
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-75382624/ Great article in the LA Times about this sauce's history recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.49.75 (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Sriracha sauce in space?
Evidence: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/station/crew-7/html/iss007e06460.html ??? --PFHLai (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's great, but we would really need some discussion of it in an article in order to establish a threshold for inclusion here. A single incidental occurrence in a photo doesn't really document anything but its existence there. Elizium23 (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-02-21/sriracha-hot-sauce-catches-fire-with-only-one-rooster  Dwpaul  Talk   05:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting and undobtedly includable especially due to the fact that NASA uses it as an attempt to counteract a potential problem with living in space.Marteau (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Sriracha legal issue
Just a quick note for now. This week the City of Irwindale sought an injunction to shut down the plant that produces all the Sriracha sauce. Claimed it was a public nuisance because of the smell. Today (Halloween) a judge declined to issue the injunction.

David Tran, chief executive and founder of Huy Fong Foods, offered the second-best California court-related rhyming couplet of all time: "If it doesn't smell, we can't sell."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/10/31/sriracha_lawsuit_court_denies_irwindale_request_to_shutter_huy_fong_foods.html

Opus131 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Further development:
 * http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-judge-rules-no-sriracha-20131126,0,7404487.story
 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger
FYI, there's been a proposal to (once again) merge Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) with Sriracha_sauce posted at Talk:Sriracha_sauce since mid July, 2013. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge template has been removed. Consensus appears to be to oppose a merger. --Kevjonesin (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Some links
Thought I'd post some links I came across while looking for references for the 'Media' section. Some may be useful to other editors looking to flesh out the article.


 * http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/lifestyle/20131207/sriracha-documentary-released-online-this-week
 * http://laist.com/2013/12/04/sriracha_documentary_set_to_debut_d.php
 * http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/griffinhammond/srirachaa-documentary-film-by-griffin-hammond
 * http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20130616/sriracha-rooster-sauce-to-star-in-upcoming-documentary
 * http://www.latimes.com/features/food/dailydish/la-dd-sriracha-documentary-filmmaker-griffin-hammond-20130613,0,7721945.story
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/griffin-hammonds-siracha-documentary-2013-6
 * http://www.businessinsider.com/griffin-hammonds-siracha-documentary-2013-6#this-is-david-tran-the-founder-of-huy-fong-foods-and-the-man-behind-cult-favorite-condiment-sriracha-he-first-started-selling-sriracha-out-of-the-back-of-his-van-in-los-angeles-in-the-early-1980s-1
 * http://hotsaucedaily.com/sriracha-the-movie-trailer/
 * http://srirachamovie.com/

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved.  Calidum Talk To Me 16:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods) → Sriracha sauce (brand) – Per WP:NCDAB, disambiguating titles should be as general possible: The word or phrase in parentheses should be: the generic class (avoiding proper nouns, as much as possible) that includes the topic.-- ukexpat (talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sriracha sauce is not a trademark brand of Huy Fong Foods. Using Sriracha sauce (brand) as the title would imply otherwise.  The product described by this article is effectively the Srirachi sauce [made by] Huy Fong Foods or Huy Fong Foods' Sriracha sauce, hence the title is correct as it exists now.  Dwpaul   Talk   13:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as above and the removal of the word food reduces clarity Gregkaye (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are dozens of sauces marketed as "Sriracha sauce".  Huy Fong's version is not unique in it's marketing and is not their trademark.  In addition, WP:NCDAB is a guideline, not policy, and is 'best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'.  Such is the case now.  Marteau (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment To solve the problem and deal with the objections above, how about using Huy Fong Foods Sriracha sauce in the format of other similar articles on sauce brands such as Tabasco sauce, Tapatío hot sauce, A1 Steak Sauce, and Duke's Mayonnaise? —  AjaxSmack   05:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there's this little problem with WP:COMMONNAME. Unlike every one of the examples you gave, literally no one refers to the product as "Huy Fong Foods Sriracha sauce" – except maybe Huy Fong Foods. ;-)   Dwpaul   Talk   05:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The common name is ambiguous and WP:NATURAL calls for natural disambiguation over a parenthetical. Tabasco sauce is usually called "Tabasco" but that's not the article title.  Likewise Heinz Tomato Ketchup is probably not the most common for that condiment. —  AjaxSmack   02:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment if this is a brand, wouldn't "sauce" be capitalized? Siracha Sauce (brand) unless the brand is "Siracha", where it would be Siracha (brand) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Sriracha sauce by itself is no more a brand name than Hollandaise sauce. The name of the latter is a reference to its purported origins (one of the explanations offered for the name of Sriracha sauce), but the name was never trademarked and is not a product unique to one producer (hence, in both cases, the sauce itself has its own article). However, this article describes one specific rendition of the generic product Sriracha sauce and the most notable one, the version made by Huy Fong Foods (hence the current page title). If there was a unique branding associated with this rendition, it would be the inclusion of the Vietnamese name Tương Ớt Sriracha on the bottle (but that is just the Vietnamese translation of Sriracha sauce, so not trademarkable), and the trade dress green-capped clear bottle with a graphic of a rooster.  This distinctive branding is impossible to express sensibly in the title, hence the simplest method of disambiguation is to use the producer's name.  Dwpaul   Talk   22:39, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photo
Noting that the photo of the Huy Fong Foods product that appeared on this page for some time has been removed, and including.  Dwpaul  Talk   15:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there some reason now the lede talks about "the rooster prominently featured on its label" and there is no rooster on the label in the accompanying image? — Brianhe (talk) 04:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the discussion that the OP linked to, as well as the description page of the current photo, the rooster logo has been removed because it is copyrighted, and such an image is not compatible with Wikipedia's licensing. Elizium23 (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Really? Why isn't this covered by WP:NFCC like every other corp logo, book cover, etc. on Wikipedia? Something special about roosters? - Brianhe (talk) 05:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For your attention per User:DGG as a case of paranoid application/misinterpretation of policy, resulting in absurd self-censorship. Or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about. But I think I do. - Brianhe (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The current image is on Commons, which does not accept any fair-use files. An unretouched image might be suitable for hosting on en.wiki. Elizium23 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * But that begs the question of why the original, WP hosted image was [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Sriracha_&#34;Rooster&#34;_sauce.jpg deleted]. It seems we have some kind of policy malfunction here resulting in crappy encyclopedic content. Brianhe (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've given up fighting this general issue, as the consensus was clearly opposed to me; my opinion however is unchanged. As for this specific FFD decision, even under our current practice I regard it as clearly absurd; FFD has its own following--the way for general community review is WP:Deletion Review.  DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that sometime in May the rooster was declared verboten for reasons which quite escape me. — Brianhe (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As near as I can figure it, because there are other Srirachas out there, a Huy Fong picture is redundant. Time to write WP:Other Srirachas exist Elizium23 (talk) 05:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Really, again? I could have sworn the title of this article was "Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods)" subtitle "the famous rooster logo sauce". — Brianhe (talk) 06:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of sriracha
I cannot edit the article itself because I do not know the phonetics, but for someone who can, please view this "authoritative" YouTube on the pronunciation of the name (which matches the pronunciation on the generic [non-Huy Fong] Sriracha sauce page in Wikipedia).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAKgUVxsLAk

Thank you. -- garyZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.206.172.2 (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can edit the phonetics, but I want to make sure it aligns with the /current/ source and common pronunciation: [] compared to the cited, archived source from an "editor's note" on a comment 7 years ago. "SIR-AH-CHA!:, , , or some other variant?

Infobox bottle image 1
You guys are literally arguing here and finally agreeing upon pixelating a bloody rooster, not because the company would have anything against it being shown, not because it wouldn't be covered by fair use, but because of your own inane and ostensibly conflicting policies. Talk about a bureaucratic nightmare...I'm just some dude that casually strolled in to learn about Siracha sauces and literally wanted to compare the logo to mine because mine says it was made in Thailand but also has a rooster. Screw you guys, screw you guys so much. Yes I can (and will) go on the coporate site. But really? Should I have to?

Edit: Upon further inspection mine is some other bird but the design is very similar. Copy cat product I guess, I wonder who was first tho...Well my journey countinues scouring the net. but you guys...you should do better. I was thinking of joining the last conference held in Europe but I don't know if it would've made any difference bringing things like this up. 83.252.117.38 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * A gentle suggestion: As of Monday, July 2024,  (UTC), The English Wikipedia has  registered users,  active editors, and  administrators. Together we have made  edits, created  pages of all kinds and created  articles. You have edited Wikipedia four times, and they all are claims that we don't know what we are doing. Might I gently suggest that you make some good edits to various articles to show us that we should care whether or not you leave? I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Infobox bottle image 2
Suggestion: Instead of the present photoshopped fantasy image (with a blank transparent field where in reality a rooster image resides) perhaps it would be more honest and encyclopedic to cover the offending area with a sort of digital 'sticker' explicitly indicating that relevant information has been redacted? Like a black field with "trademarked image redacted" written across it, or some such? Or maybe better yet simply blur out and pixelate the trademarked rooster in a manner similar to how TV shows often redact logos on clothing and such captured in candid footage (a format likely familiar to many readers and hence largely self explanatory; ie. 'least surprise', perhaps)? It seems to me that there'd likely be benefit in displaying something other than the present (fictitious) contrivance 'as is' without qualification.

If some agreement/shared will towards such arises I'm willing to fire up GIMP and perform the necessary image modifications and submit some examples here for consideration but would like some indication that there are others who at least endorse such a change in theory before investing time and effort into image editing.

p.s. -- In the interest of being upfront with the readership, I'm going to at least note the redaction in the infobox thumbnail text for now.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A pixilated cock might be better than the current neutering by Photoshop, athough Wikipedia is not supposed to be censored. Jonathunder (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I argued at that censoring the image was dumb. If we must have a censored image, then portraying it Photoshopped this way is dumb. Pixellated or with a black censor bar is better. - Brianhe (talk) 18:39, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and uploaded a pixelated replacement to Commons (under the same filename). --Kevjonesin (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Alas the uploader of the blank space version seems to be showing some territoriality ... Or perhaps they simply misunderstood the change. Regardless, at present they've reverted to their version. Hopefully a bit of further elaboration (and perhaps some time to let it sink in) will allow them to grasp why overt redaction might better suit the contexts in which the image is being used.


 * I've started a thread on the relevant Commons discussion page.


 * --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As has seen fit to restore a trademarked logo because he found one on Commons, I've gone through the category on Commons and tagged all the offending ones as copyvio, so they should be unlinked here shortly. Elizium23 (talk) 14:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion.

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sriracha Hot Chili Sauce Pics by Mike Mozart -Sriracha Sauce - (14059682069).jpg


 * The image in question was speedy deleted, so I restored the pixelated version. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe that the relevant policy is at Manual of Style/Trademarks, which says:


 * "Use of graphic logos:
 * Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, company, or entity.
 * Product logos and corporate logos, such as the stylized rendition of the word Dell used by Dell Inc., whether copyrighted or not, may be used once in the infobox or corner of articles about the related product, service, company, or entity.


 * Although many companies claim copyright over their logos, the use of the logo in an encyclopedia article may be considered fair use. Please tag logo images with non-free logo...


 * Note that non-free logos should only be used in the infoboxes of the primary article(s) to which they are affiliated; i.e. a company logo may be used in the article about that company, but not in a separate article about one of the company's products."

If I am reading the policy correctly, we may use the rooster in the infobox at Huy Fong Foods but we must not use the rooster in the infobox at Sriracha sauce (Huy Fong Foods).

In general, it is safe for any Wikipedia editor to use any image from Commons, and if anyone objects, the proper procedure is to challenge it at commons, which is what was done in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Related discussion: commons:File talk:Sriracha Hot Sauce Bottles Freshii Restaurant Family Dinner Downtown Grand Rapids June 27, 2014 1 (14552677466).jpg --Guy Macon (talk) 17:40, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

So the issue is the trade-marked rooster? In that case what about an image of the bottle taken from an angle that doesn't show the rooster? I have a bottle of the stuff right here and I can take a picture quite easily. Harizotoh9 (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure it would satisfy everyone, but I would like to see the new image and see if we can get agreement on it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

this entire discussion is ridiculous and you should all be ashamed, especially Elizium23 for forcing your incorrect legal interpretation on everyone else. a manual of style is not a strict policy that requires bending over backwards to satisfy. here is the actual policy: WP:NFCCP if you are so blinkered as to consider that an image of a bottle of hotsauce is a work of art, note that all of the relevant conditions in the non-free image use policy are satisfied to allow the use of the image in this article. pixellating or censoring is not even correct wikipedia policy. -- 157.131.95.172 (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Please clarify
It's not clear from the current version of this article: are some or all of the chilis used by Huy Fong Foods now grown in Mexico? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)