Talk:Conagra Brands/Archive 4

Environmental issues request
Hi editors, I was looking at the Environmental issues subsection and thought it would be possible to make a few improvements related to accuracy and sourcing. Here's what I was thinking.

When fully rendered, it looks like this:

This request is asking to change quite a few things, so I'll try to break it down a bit here:


 * Significantly trims content related to Ceres. I couldn't find the report cited here and there is a lot of information in the live text that isn't on topic and not necessary according to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I did find an outside source talking about the report, so I replaced the citation with that third-party source.
 * Modifies the Newsweek sentence to better fit a new source. Like the Ceres content, I couldn't find the original source, but was able to locate a third-party article that discusses the ranking and added it here.
 * Removes the MPCA clean-up paragraph. I couldn't find a third-party source for this content and it's my understanding that the content should not remain under current sourcing guidelines.
 * Reworks the content related to the W.P. Fuller lawsuit. The content in the live article is not verified by the sources used (the date is wrong, for one thing) and is incomplete. I've reworked the old content, removed the block quote from an intermediary judgment as it is more confusing than helpful to understanding the situation, and added content and a source for the final resolution.

Please let me know what you think! Eventually, I'd like to propose moving this content to the 20002015 section. If you're curious about my overall hopes for the section, I did upload a draft and diff here. RWConagra (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


 * You've provided the fully rendered text to be added, but if you could provide the fully rendered text to be removed that would be appreciated, instead of having to hunt and peck the references from the infuriating template (which by design, omits references). Thanks so much for your help. Regards,  Spintendo  02:56, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you're asking for. I'll do my best here!






 * Comparing the old text to the new side by side with the references looks like this:




 * Please let me know if that makes sense and what you think! RWConagra (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ With some slight wording changes. Regards, Spintendo  17:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Those changes look good to me! RWConagra (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Environmental issues move request
Hi editors, with the content in Environmental issues now changed, I'd like to propose removing that section heading and move the content to the end of the 20002015 section, based on the ideas in WP:NOCRIT. Separating it out in this way seems to me like it's placing undue weight on the topic and goes against WP:STRUCTURE. Please let me know what you think! RWConagra (talk) 15:57, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That would leave the labor issues section alone under the criticism heading for a brief amount of time. That might suggest to any uninitiated readers who come upon it during that time span that the only criticisms of note are labor issues. If the goal is to eventually migrate all of the text in the criticism section to greener pastures elsewhere in the article, then these migrant sections ought to leave all at once rather than as successive caravans.

Regards, Spintendo  17:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. I'll propose some changes to the Labor issues section, then propose moving all of that content at once to avoid the balance issue. RWConagra (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Labor issues request
Hi editors, based on the discussion from my previous request I have suggestions for the Labor issues section. I'll try to break them down in more detail.

All together, the new text looks like the box below:

Please let me know what you think. I think these changes are a net improvement for reader understanding and accuracy of the section. Due to my COI I won't make any changes myself. RWConagra (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Appreciate you taking a look! RWConagra (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Content move request
Hi editors, after recent changes were made, I have a request to move the content in the Criticism section to appropriate places in the History section. I think this will better align with WP:STRUCTURE and the ideas in WP:NOCRIT. I also suggest adding a sentence as a transition to help it all flow a bit better.

In essence, what I'm suggesting here is taking all of the Criticism section minus the final sentence and putting it at the end of the 20002015 section, then taking that remaining final sentence and putting it at the end of 2016present. You can hopefully get a clearer idea of what I'd originally hoped for in my draft, though the content is slightly different now.

Altogether, the end of the 20002015 section would like this with these changes:

Let me know what you think! As always I won't make changes myself due to my COI. RWConagra (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out two issues I see with this text-to-be-moved: During the 2000s and 2010s, ConAgra faced further scrutiny for its environmental practices the word "further" should be removed. I believe that word is a leftover from previous versions that had other environmental issues being mentioned ahead of it, which have now either been moved or removed. So if this is the first salient part of the article where we're hearing about environmental issues after this move is made, then that word should be taken out. Also, It received low marks on environmental stewardship from Ceres and Newsweek, with the company ranking 342nd of 500 on the latter's inaugural "Green Rankings" Newsweek's Green Rankings are, I don't believe, notable. If this were a non-notable award of merit from Newsweek that the COI editor was asking to add to the article, I would not be inclined to add it — so it's fair to ask, why would we add a non-notable award of demerit to the article? I understand this portion of the text has already existed for some time now, I'm just questioning why it needs to remain.

Regards, Spintendo  08:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine with those changes being made. With those changes the end of the 20002015 section would look like this:


 * Would you be willing to make that move? I'd appreciate it! RWConagra (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ STEM info  (talk) 18:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for doing that! RWConagra (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

2002 E. Coli section
Hi editors, I wanted to follow up on my last request. As found, there was a source that better supported the content in the 2002 E. Coli outbreak section (thanks for finding that!); however, there are still some issues with that section.
 * The live version still says "third-largest recall", which isn't accurate and doesn't make sense
 * The final sentence is ripped straight from the NYT with no changes
 * The second reference is still broken

With that in mind, I'd like to propose changing the section from:
 * Conagra recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef in July 2002 with E. coli bacterial contamination. It was the third-largest recall up to that time. That meat was linked to the illnesses of 19 people in six Western and Midwestern states.

To


 * The company recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef suspected of contamination with Escherichia coli in July 2002 after 19 people in six states became ill following its consumption. It was the second-largest meat recall in U.S. history.

This fixes the broken reference, changes wording to avoid any potential copyright issues, and corrects the bit about the size of the recall. Let me know what you think! RWConagra (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Spintendo  19:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Product incidents request 1
Hi editors, in my efforts to continue to look at the neutrality of content in the article, I thought I'd turn to the Product incidents section. You can see my hopes for the section in my draft, in the final paragraphs of the 20002015 section, but I thought first I'd look at the language specifically in the section now.

First, I'd like to propose changing the 2002 E. Coli section from:


 * Conagra recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef in July 2002 with E. coli bacterial contamination. It was the third-largest recall up to that time. That meat was linked to the illnesses of 19 people in six Western and Midwestern states.

To


 * The company recalled 19 million pounds of ground beef after 19 people became ill after consuming it in 2002.

I think this does a few things: Let me know what you think! As always I won't make the change myself due to my COI. RWConagra (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It fixes a broken link
 * It trims some of the detail, which I think becomes a bit excessive, per What Wikipedia is not and due weight
 * The bit about the recall in the source is quite short, and the final sentence is copied directly from the Times article with no paraphrasing
 * It makes the content more accurate
 * The source does not say the beef was contaminated with E. Coli
 * Removes the bit about the "third largest recall at the time" which even in the original source is confusing

Reply 7-NOV-2023
Regards, Spintendo  03:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The changes suggested removing content that is well-cited or where sources exist.
 * The source does not say the beef was contaminated with E. Coli — I've added a NYTimes source that says it was.
 * Removes the bit about the "third largest recall at the time" which even in the original source is confusing — The updated NYTimes source I added said it was "the second-largest recall of meat in the country's history." (as of 2002, when the piece was published).
 * Ah, thanks for adding that source! RWConagra (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! RWConagra (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

2002 E. Coli section cleanup request
Hi editors, I had a small request to clean up the 2002 E. Coli section after 's recent changes based on my last request. Could editors remove the second paragraph in that section? It's now redundant. Thanks! RWConagra (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ STEM info  (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for doing that! RWConagra (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)