| Revision as of 19:57, 18 December 2012 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:48, 20 December 2012 edit undoKkirkham (talk | contribs)84 edits →Pregnant Sows SectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
| ::::If you want to add one taken by Smithfield Foods you're welcome to do that and we can show them side by side (so long as it's released and is definitely of the gestation crates – the fair-use one you wanted us to use was taken in the birthing room, as I recall, according to the voiceover on the video it came from). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ::::If you want to add one taken by Smithfield Foods you're welcome to do that and we can show them side by side (so long as it's released and is definitely of the gestation crates – the fair-use one you wanted us to use was taken in the birthing room, as I recall, according to the voiceover on the video it came from). ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::My mistake--after reading your recollection of my previous statements about the photo, I do remember saying what you quoted. I just remembered my motivation, and forgot how I worded it, so I was wrong on that. Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me since you are correct that the new photo was taken at a Smithfield facility, although I would still be interested to hear from other editors which photo they think is most appropriate for us to use in this case, given that the one you sourced is from an animal activist group. | |||
| :::::How do folks react to my other questions about the first sentence of the paragraph? ] (]) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:48, 20 December 2012
 | Companies C‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Food and drink C‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | Virginia C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Smithfield Foods be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. Wikipedians in Virginia may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. | Upload |
 Archives | ||
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
2010 Humane Society investigation
Smithfield Foods#2010 Humane Society investigation should be renamed "Virginia State Veternarian visit", and should be based on more recent secondary sources, such as this article from The Virginian-Pilot.
Currently most of the section is based on a primary source, the Humane Society and an AP article reporting statements from both the Humane Society and the company. I think btw it is important to explain who the Humane Society is because in many jurisdictions humane societies play a law enforcement role, The emphasis on these sources gives greater weight to the Humane Society's view, when neutrality requires that greatest weight be provided to the State Veternarian. The proviso of course is that any subsequent expert opinion may superceded the State Veternarian's finding.
My understanding of the events is that the State Veterinarian inspected the farm and found that the pigs were healthy and there was no sign of abuse. His inspection was in response to a video released by the Humane Society, which is an animal welfare group, that showed abuse and mistreatment. The company responded to the video by taking disciplinary action against the employees responsible.
TFD (talk) 21:05, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- Do we really need the extended, specific information on the killing of the pigs? It seems a bit much and could be a bit POV in trying to influence readers. Silverseren 07:16, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Here are a couple links to more third party coverage, if you're interested in citing more material about this. As a Smithfield employee, I don't want to weigh in on my impression of the events too much, but would agree that TFD's synopsis of events is accurate.
- I re-wrote the section to provide greater weight to the eventual findings by the State Veterinarian. TFD (talk) 09:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- TFD, I just noticed there is a minor error--the section title includes "2011" but it should be "2010." I'll go ahead and make this change since it is so minor. Kkirkham (talk) 15:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
RfC: General Article Help and Vertical Integration section
All, we've gone back and forth on the talk page here on a number of issues, one being a discussion as to whether or not the article gives undue weight to certain topics. As an employee of the company, I cannot (or should not) make edits to the article myself, so I thought I would put in a request for comment.
One issue in particular that could use some attention is the "Vertical Integration" section. The last paragraph in that section is not at all related to the subject of Vertical Integration. I'd like to get some feedback on that section (or other sections).
Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
- When you mention " last paragraph in that section," are your referring to the paragraph that begins, "The pigs are housed together?" If so, that seems to me to be a reasonable continuation of the previous paragraph and therefore closely enough related to the topic of "Vertical Integration" that I would think that it could stand. That being said, I share your concern in watching for disproportionately negative content and so am sensitive to your raising this matter (without making a judgment as to whether this article currently contains disproportionately negative content). Perhaps the author (or a consensus of editors) would consent to moving it to another section, or the creation of a new subsection of the "Vertical Integration" section that more clearly delineates the boundary between neutrality and "legitimate criticism." SteveT (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. That is the paragraph I was referring to, but I still stand by my opinion that it is not related to vertical integration. Any company (regardless of industry) can be vertically integrated--it simply means controlling your inputs all the way through the supply chain. Therefore, a detailed discussion of the way pigs are housed and waste systems don't fit in with this discussion. The company could be vertically integrated regardless of the pig housing systems used, and therefore I don't believe this content is relevant in this section.
- Also, the section cites articles on "Intensive Pig Farming" and "Factory Farming" as links for further information; both of which are not related to the subject of being vertically integrated. That's my two cents. Kkirkham (talk) 13:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for replying! My response would be that your objection that the paragraph "is not related to vertical integration. Any company ... can be vertically integrated..." does not, in my opinion, necessarily mean the paragraph in question should be removed. Having said that, I would have no objection to removing it or moving it to another section or subsection.
- Parenthetically, I don't believe it to be true that "vertically integrated ... means controlling your inputs all the way through the supply chain" -- I think that if a company operates in any two (or more) levels of their supply chain, there is vertical integration. SteveT (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Got this from Feedback Request Service. Both of the above definitions of vertical integration are correct, one in the strict sense (completely integrated), and one in the weak sense (partially integrated). And, as a completely uninvolved editor (I may have eaten Smithfield pork in the past, I don't know), intensive pig farming/factory farming has absolutely nothing to do with vertical integration. If it's presented in a way that criticizes factory farming (viz environmentalists, organic activists, animal rights activists), it should be in some other section, or in a "criticism" section, or sub-section, as any vertical integration or lack thereof, or any criticism of said vertical integration, has no bearing one way or the other on factory farming, which is taken to be an animal-ethical, not business-ethical or monopolistic, issue. St John Chrysostom τω 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- As a further comment not directly related to the RfC, I believe KKirkham has mostly valid concerns about the article, with the proviso that I would phrase it thus: that the article is not biased against Smithfield Foods qua Smithfield Foods (that is, as unique to that specific company's practices), but is (quite heavily) biased towards an animal-rights activist presentation of (pig, animal) farming in general (which, beyond the State Veterinary Report, has little bearing directly on this company as one among all that practice such methods of farming), as the majority of the stuff could be shoehorned in to the article of any organization or company that practices such farming methods. St John Chrysostom τω 22:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hi all, Thanks so much for your feedback on this issue. I've taken a stab at re-working the section on my Sandbox page (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kkirkham/sandbox). What do you guys think of this version? I tried to keep it to factual, neutral information. See what you think and feel free to make suggestions. Kkirkham (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- Has anyone had a chance to look at the Vertical Integration section I drafted above? I'd love some feedback. Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Now it seems to be in danger of running afoul of WP:NPOV in the other direction. However, I have no strong objection to it. In fact, in accordance with the principle of WP:Be Bold, I'm inclined to say you should go ahead and edit the article to include your section. Surely three-and-a-half weeks is long enough for someone to have raised an objection! SteveT (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with the rewrite as long as the information in the 3rd graph is integrated into the Environmental and Welfare sections. For instance, that EPA violation is to this date (I believe, have to check) the largest fine ever imposed and is therefore historically relevant. But it's mentioned further down so would just need to expand upon it there, as well as the Rolling Stone article. I can take a shot at that if everyone is happy with Kkirkahm's work.Bob98133 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- No objections. TFD (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- Ok great. Thanks for the feedback, all. I'll go ahead and make the edits. Kkirkham (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
It's inappropriate for Smithfield Foods (or anyone else) to remove details of how the company houses the pigs and handles the waste. The sources are good, and include a piece of award-winning journalism from Jeff Tietz. There have been several attempts to remove this source from the article; the company strongly dislikes it, but then companies do not usually like investigative journalism. A discussion on the RSN recently agreed that it was a reliable source. So, please, no more attempts to remove material that is well-sourced and directly relevant. And Kkirkham, please do not edit this article again. See WP:NOPAY for the guideline: "If you have a financial connection to a topic (as an employee, owner or other stakeholder), you are advised to refrain from editing articles directly ..." Many thanks, SlimVirgin 20:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Strongly disagree, providing the proposed edit is fully discussed for a reasonable length of time, as it was in this case (discussion began 25 October 2012, decision made to go ahead with the edit 16:06, 10 December 2012), making it a group edit, not a personal edit by Kkirkham. Even if there were a consensus that it had been an inappropriate edit after it was made, it can be easily re-edited or removed. I would resist the idea of such censorship -- even the company and its stakeholders can provide worthwhile input! SteveT (talk) 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Pregnant Sows Section
All,
I have concerns about the Pregnant Sow section of the article. It seems to be too heavily-focused on gestation crates themselves, and not specifically on Smithfield's use of the crates. Just as I did with the Vertical Integration section, I've taken a crack at re-working the section to be more centered on Smithfield's use of gestation crates and their announcements surrounding them. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Kkirkham/sandbox
I also have concerns about the photo chosen, as it was taken from an animal activist group's video. I've suggested another photo, which is the one used as the primary photo in the Gestation Crate article.
Please let me know if there are any comments or feedback on my draft of the section. Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about replacing the picture, since it is specifically a Smithfield location (and you're trying to make this specifically about Smithfield), and there's not much difference b/w that and the generic one. I'm hoping maybe SlimVirgin will check in since he's/she's the one who added that picture. Otherwise, I don't have any problem with your rewrite, exception being that since you're citing a primary source as the reference for the stated goal for conversion, I think the wording should be closer to it, i.e. "plan to meet their original goal" or "intend to meet their original goal." "Would meet" doesn't account for the "unforeseen circumstances" that the press release does. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Kkirkham is trying to remove everything that is critical of the company, and it really needs to stop. The image is of a Smithfield stall. When we were using a generic one, Kkirkham objected to it, and insisted that we find one of a Smithfield stall. I therefore got a release from the Humane Society of the United States (an animal welfare group, not an animal rights group) for one they took inside Smithfield. I deliberately added one that did not show the pigs in obvious distress, or show pigs that looked unhealthy, had wounds or were bleeding. Yet still there is an attempt to remove it. SlimVirgin 20:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my comment in the "RfC: General Article Help and Vertical Integration section" section dated 04:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC). Your first sentence here (just above) seems to me just as much a violation of neutrality as you seem to be accusing Kkirkham of being guilty. Let's have a freewheeling, open discussion of everyone's suggestions, not blackball people because they might have a particular interest. SteveT (talk) 04:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've incorporated the suggestions in Kirkham's sandbox (diff), except for the removal of the image. The company's objection to that image is that it shows how little space the pigs have to move, and why they can't turn round. This is directly relevant to the section and to the complaints about the use of the crates. It is a freely licensed, good-quality image of a Smithfield stall (and I obtained the release only because Kkirkham asked that we use an image of an actual Smithfield stall), and it illustrates why even McDonald's complained about the company's use of these crates. Temple Grandin, who became a Smithfield consultant, also complained about them, saying (from memory) that it was like asking someone to live on an airline seat. Again, this image shows what she meant. SlimVirgin 21:10, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have no intention of removing "everything critical of the company." You'll notice that in my Sandbox draft of this section I included the fact that gestation stalls had been criticized by many different groups. My aim is to ensure that Smithfield is represented in an accurate and fair manner, not to in some way white-wash the article.
- My reason for using the image I suggested on my Sandbox page instead of the one currently in the article was not because "it shows how little space the pigs have to move and why they can't turn around," as you suggest. I asked for the other image to be used because the current image was sourced from an animal activist group, and in the interest of remaining NPOV, I suggested that we use an unbiased image from the "Gestation Crates" page. The reason I had originally had a problem with the image used in the article was that the original image in the article showed gross negligence and filth, and there is no evidence that this had occurred at a Smithfield facility. I didn't necessarily want an image of a Smithfield farm, but rather my intent was that the image reflected poorly upon Smithfield even though we had no connection with that image. I think the best thing to do here would be to use a third-party image that didn't come directly from us here at Smithfield, but also is not sourced from an animal activist group.
- Also, the statement "The company keeps pregnant sows in gestation crates" is misleading, as the company is actively transitioning away from this method of housing, and 30% of Smithfield's pregnant sows are already housed in group pens. In addition, the amount of time spent by sows in various parts of the production process varies from farm to farm (I believe the resting period varies, for example) so we need to stay away from imposing timelines on things that we don't know for sure or that vary. My suggestion would be to remove the current first sentence in favor of something like this: "The majority of pork production systems in the United States use individual stalls to house sows during their pregnancy. These stalls, termed gestation stalls or gestation crates, have come under criticism by animal welfare groups, supermarket chains, etc. etc." I think that sentence more accurately provides an accurate context for what these stalls/crates are and how they are used in pork production. Thoughts from the group? Kkirkham (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- If we have a freely licenced, high-quality image of a Smithfield stall, we have no reason to use any other. It doesn't matter for our purposes who took the photograph; the only thing that matters is whether it is free, representative, and of reasonable quality.
- You wrote above: "I didn't necessarily want an image of a Smithfield farm ..." But you did insist that we use one of Smithfield, not a generic one. You wanted us to use a fair-use image of a Smithfield stall, and wrote on 18 September as part of the rationale (now deleted): "Other images could/should not be used since the article is talking about facilities owned by a particular company, so the article should show equipment/facilities from that company, if possible." That is why I obtained this release.
- If you want to add one taken by Smithfield Foods you're welcome to do that and we can show them side by side (so long as it's released and is definitely of the gestation crates – the fair-use one you wanted us to use was taken in the birthing room, as I recall, according to the voiceover on the video it came from). SlimVirgin 19:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
- My mistake--after reading your recollection of my previous statements about the photo, I do remember saying what you quoted. I just remembered my motivation, and forgot how I worded it, so I was wrong on that. Changing the photo again is a fairly minor issue to me since you are correct that the new photo was taken at a Smithfield facility, although I would still be interested to hear from other editors which photo they think is most appropriate for us to use in this case, given that the one you sourced is from an animal activist group.
- How do folks react to my other questions about the first sentence of the paragraph? Kkirkham (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
- C-Class company articles
- Mid-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles
- C-Class Food and drink articles
- Low-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- C-Class Virginia articles
- Mid-importance Virginia articles
- WikiProject Virginia articles
- Misplaced Pages requested images of business & economic topics
- Misplaced Pages requested images of food
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Virginia