Talk:Conagra Brands/Archive 3

Diacetyl request
Hi editors, I had a request for the Diacetyl section. It seems to me that most of the content there isn't really related to Conagra, so I suggest trimming it down to keep the content focused on Conagra. Here's what I'm thinking:

I think this keeps the content more focused on Conagra itself and changes the source to confirm that the changes did in fact happen, rather than just saying an announcement was made. Please let me know what you think! RWConagra (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC) Arjayay (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The text as it now exists in the article is much clearer in discussing the information than the requested prose is. Regards, Spintendo  23:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look! Also thanks to and  for fixing my error. RWConagra (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

2000s request 3
Hi editors, I had another request to make updates to the 20002015 section. For this request, I suggest significantly expanding the third paragraph, which is currently a single sentence.

Rendered, the new paragraph looks like this:

This is pretty much a total overhaul of what that paragraph was. It adds more content related to acquisitions and sales during the late 00s and early 10s. It also adds sentences related to Prop. 37 and GMO labeling as fits within the timeline.

Please let me know what you think and if you have any questions! RWConagra (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * (See WP:INTEGRITY.)
 * The proposed text ConAgra purchased Watts Brothers Farms from Don Watts to bolster its Lamb Weston division in 2008 and purchased Ralcorp in 2012.[4][5] is not cited correctly. Citation 4 is dated 2008, yet it is placed at the end of a sentence containing information that occurred in 2012.
 * The proposed text ConAgra sold Ralcorp to TreeHouse Foods for $2.7 billion in 2015 and purchased Blake's All Natural Foods the same year.[8][9] is not cited correctly. Citation 8 says nothing about Blake's All Natural Foods, yet it is placed at the end of the sentence which contains that claim.
 * Regards, Spintendo  21:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking! I will fix that in a new request. RWConagra (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

2000s request 3 source placement update
Hi editors, I am back with updated source placement per the last comment on a previous request. This request is to replace the current third paragraph of the 20002015 section with new text that further expands on events during the mid 00s and early 2010s.

Rendered, the new paragraph looks like this:

That should meet WP:INTEGRITY. Please let me know what you think and if you have any questions! RWConagra (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for correcting the integrity issues, I see no more concerns there. However, there is a word that is used in the request twice, the word "bolster". This is a subjective word with unclear meaning and purpose. I would prefer that another word and/or an enhanced explanation covering whatever intent you're wishing to convey in the two sentences which currently use this word. Please advise. Regards, Spintendo  18:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure, I think "grow" conveys the same meaning in this context. The acquisitions in both instances made Lamb Weston larger, so "grow" works as well. It would look like this (bold added):

Let me know what you think of that! RWConagra (talk) 16:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 10-OCT-2023
Regards, Spintendo  23:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Commentary-type text such as that discussing "growth" and "bolstering" was omitted entirely.
 * That works for me, thanks for making the change! RWConagra (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Genetically modified foods request
Hi editors, for my next request I ask that we remove the Genetically modified foods section. The section is now redundant with the recent changes made to the 20002015 section, as the same information is now in the first and third paragraphs, albeit summarized a bit to keep it more on topic. It also seems that having that content in a separate section goes against the spirit of WP:STRUCTURE, which says that "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure" and that editors should "Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

With the way content has been placed into the 20002015 section, it has been effectively folded into the narrative and better meets the ideal set forth by WP:STRUCTURE than the current article structure. Can we remove the Genetically modified foods section?

Please let me know what you think! As always because of my COI I won't make that change myself. RWConagra (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Reply 11-OCT-2023
Unfortunately, I can't take your word for it that the text has been "folded" into other sections. I'm going to need to see proof from the article that this has occurred. This can be done by submitting a request which has been broken into two portions: one section showing the text from the proposed deleted portion, and the other section showing where that text has been emplaced/summarized elsewhere within the article, as shown below:

The COI editor is asked to submit an edit request which calls attention to the sections of text within the existing article that, because they exist, justify the removal of the section in question. Please note that I am aware that certain sections aren't repeated verbatim because of paraphrasing changes that may have been made. The COI editor stated in their request "the same information is now in the first and third paragraphs, albeit summarized a bit to keep it more on topic." The reviewer is asking to see proof of those sections and summarizations shown here on the talk page before anything is deleted as per the request. Please open a new edit request which supplies this proof at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed. Regards, Spintendo  21:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, simple enough! RWConagra (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Updated Genetically modified foods request
Hi editors, I'm back with the request for the Genetically modified foods section with the table as requested by. In short, this request is to delete the Genetically modified foods section as it is now redundant after recent changes were made to other portions of the article and the remaining section has some significant problems related to verifiability. The table comparing the section to the text in the 20002015 section is below.

I think it's also worth noting that the current Genetically modified foods section has some significant issues.
 * None of the snapshots (1, 2, 3) around the time source 58 in the live article was retrieved say anything about a donation, so that sentence is not verified by sourcing
 * Source 59 in the live article does not mention Conagra at all. The paragraph beginning with "Throughout 2012" is not verified by sourcing
 * Source 60 in the live article does not directly support several of the assertions made:
 * "strong consumer backlash" – not supported by the source, arguably could be considered original research
 * "consumer advocates encouraged nationwide boycotts" – the source doesn't say this, only that boycotts happened
 * "movements were started in several other states to enact similar labeling requirements" – the source doesn't say this, only that there were proposals being discussed in about 20 states. I'd also argue that "movements" in this context is non-neutral wording
 * "As a result, ConAgra and others in the Coalition" – the source does not say anything about membership in the Coalition being referred to here. Coalition membership in relation to this ballot measure is also unsupported as noted in relation to Source 59
 * "instead of trying to defeat the measures in every state." – the source does not say this, and mentions no plans to try to defeat ballot measures elsewhere. This is not supported and would likely qualify as WP:OR

I'd also like to note again, as I did in my previous request, that I think separating this content out in the manner it was separated out violates WP:STRUCTURE.

I hope that helps clear things up! Please let me know what you think! RWConagra (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thank you for providing the information as I have requested. As you can see, it was helpful in both illuminating the requested changes as a whole, as well as to help in fleshing out additional reasonings for the changes that weren't necessarily provided by you in your first request. I can see that the references provided for the contribution claims in the genetically modified foods section weren't substantiated, and that the bulk of the information is better handled elsewhere. So this change is approved. Regards, Spintendo  23:13, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for doing that! RWConagra (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)