Talk:Smithfield Foods/Archive 1

Proposed removal of "quality standards" tag
After a very brief clean-up for grammar, spelling, open and broken reference tags, misplaced reference tags, and POV--okay maybe not SO brief--I'd like to propose the tag atop the article be removed so other articles can get the attention and help they're due. Anyone opposed, please state the specific areas that need to be addressed before you'd personally consider this piece "Wiki-ready". Thanks! Wysdom 21:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits to "Labor Disputes"
Hey, peeps--I edited the section about labor disputes to reflect the facts a bit more accurately (that Smithfield agreed to the NLRB's call for new election and measures to ensure fairness only after they (Smithfield) were found against in court is relevant, I think).

However, I forgot to add in my comment about the edit that I removed the sentence about the NLRB "refusing" Smithfield's offer to pay half the fee for an impartial observer (in addition to asking for a citation to support that the offer was made by Smithfield in the first place). Neither of these facts were stated in the press release cited as the source, and the former (alleging refusal) seems suspiciously defamatory without a source to give said refusal (if it occurred) context. Wysdom 20:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Added material from Rolling Stone
Practices of Smithfield Foods has been discussed in a Rolling Stones article at this link: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks_dirty_secret_the_nations_top_hog_producer_is_also_one_of_americas_worst_polluters/1 I suggest that some this material be in wikipedia. 74.226.26.34 19:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started adding some of it; be bold and help out with the work! We need to be on guard though; this article was riddled with Smithfield POV and I suspect, based on the history of this and other Smithfield articles, that material sourced to the Rolling Stone piece will be removed by new users sooner rather than later. -- Zantastik  talk  04:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Copying from the Smithfield Foods site
About recent copyright edits:
 * User:Zantastik (04:07:45) removed material with edit comment:
 * History section was c-vio of http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/Understand/History/
 * User:BaseballDetective (4:11:40) restored it, saying
 * How is it a copyright violation when the original page isn't copyrighted and attribution to the source is very clearly made? Maybe it reads too "brochure like", but I don't think it should be removed.

BaseballDetective, under current copyright law, almost all published material (including Web pages) is copyrighted by its author, with or without a copyright notice; see Copyrights, and requires authorization from the rights holder before we can use it verbatim. In the case of Smithfield Foods, this is made explicit on their terms and conditions page.

What's more, self-descriptions like this are likely to be biased, and should be used with caution. --Macrakis 17:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Smithfieldfoods.gif
Image:Smithfieldfoods.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Swine flu
Nothing on Smithfield Foods' possible culpability in the creation and spread of the modified H1N1 Swine influenza virus? --68.46.148.86 (talk) 11:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6182789.ece  --Ecureuil espagnol (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Mexican Flu Patient Zero
Edgar Hernandez, 5yo boy, contracted from Smithfield Farms (Smithfield Foods) pigfarm in Veracruz, Mexico (state), according to CNN, Sanjay Gupta. (aired 9am EDT 29 April 2009 CE) 76.66.202.139 (talk) 13:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Content of article
The nature of the subject matter appears to be based upon liberal activist reports. Is there nothing else to say, other than how Smithfield is rated and critiqued by environmentalist and animal rights organizations? Gadsden, Arizona 01:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)
 * Don't like it? Find some right-wing, do-nothing reports to reference how wonderful they are. Or at least be specific about which liberal activist reports dominate the article - AP, The Guardian, Environmental Protection Agency?? There are 20 references supporting the content of this article, so you're going to need refs to support your complaint. Bob98133 (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now. No reason to talk either about "liberal activists" nor "right-wing, do-nothing reports".  The article can certainly be improved in many ways without labelling people like this. --macrakis (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. The meaning of the complaint, was about the article's tone and direction, as revealing liberal activist critiques and judgments. The kind of concerns outlined in this article, are hardly the average person's, but are well known objectives held by liberal activists. As to the point of "labeling" other people, that was not my intention, so much as to call for a broader and more comprehensive approach to the subject matter, rather than narrowly confined to hot-button issues which matter mostly to those who make it a mission. Wikipedia is not supposed to be about making a point, tendentious editing, nor pov pushing and ignoring the cause of assuming good faith. I am entirely disposed towards Wikipedia expectations and standards. Please reconsider hostility and reread what my essential protest is. Gadsden, Arizona 08:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)


 * I don't understand what you mean by "liberal activist critiques and judgments." Perhaps you could give some examples, explaining how politics enters into this, and some suggestions with references on how the article could be improved? Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Profess ignorance when you were the first to reply, with a BAD ATTITUDE. Hit a nerve? Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)\


 * This is the place to discuss the article. After provoking a response by claiming that this is based on liberal activist reports, you have given no examples of this, even though I have repeatedly asked for examples. If you just want to be insulting without offering improvements, please move the discussion to our personal talk pages. If you want to improve the article, please answer the questions I've asked about how the article could be improved.Bob98133 (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If it was any other person, or any other response, then I'd agree to go through this. You have killed it before it could begin. Kangaroo court sham is all. Thanks. You can own the article if you so wish. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Smithfield article
Hi - sorry you were discouraged from contributing when asked for examples or references. This is a typical request, however, you seem far more interested in attacking other editors or exposing some alleged liberal media agenda than improving the article, so your decision not to contribute to this article is welcome. Thanks. Bob98133(talk) 16:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)


 * Please note that the above was posted to user Catterick's personal talk page, and re-posted on this page by Catterick. My apologies since this editor appears not to understand the use of the article discussion pages to improve the articles. If there are any other editors who can address Catterick's claim about liberal bias in this article, I would be interested in that discussion and improving the article. I do not intend to respond to Catterick's off-topic, or reposted comments from his personal discussion page. Bob98133 (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What part of replying on personal talk pages don't you understand?
Bob98133 (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catterick (talk • contribs)

forced/contracted
Recent edit changing forced to work to contracted to work really should have a reference. Do employees have to sign a contract that they will work more than 40 hours per week? Or is this something that is "understood"? Bob98133 (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

not a great article
How about some company history, detailed info the growth of their operations, how they became so dominant, why their bacon is so delicious, their canned ham so unusually succulent... You know, something other than just the Erin Brockovich stuff? I'm reading David Kirby's new book about the horrors of factory farming and came here to get some context. Lo and behold: the horrors of factory farming and little else. Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.186.79 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

POV
I'm adding the POV tag to the article. The bulk of the article is devoted to controversial practices at the company, which makes the article look like an attack piece. So while there are the view of Smithfield in the text, having section after section based on charges against the company shows an anti-Smithfield point of view. --Beirne (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's that much good to say about this company, but I don't disagree with the POV tag since there is so much bad stuff. Certainly, the sentence touching on the company's history in the lead could be the basis for a History section. The Charitable giving section is neutral-to-positive about the company. So if there is something that this company does that is innovative, unique or noteworthy, that could certainly be referenced and included which might balance out the apparent POV. There are many towns named Smithfield which may or may not have to do with this company, but I think some of them may have been created by the company, so if this is true it would be neutral and could be added. They may have been one of the earlier companies to industrialize hog production, so that could be noted if there are refs. Bob98133 (talk) 15:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a history section because I needed someplace to put the sale of the Butterball operation. I probably should do more tinkering. Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the POV tag on the top of the article? I don't see when it was removed in the history, but it is still appropriate. Xanderanj (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)XanderanjXanderanj (talk) 22:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I just happened to check back and found that the POV tag was missing. I have restored it again.  This is still nearly all an anti-Smithfield article, with a few quotes from corporate sources as a failed attempt at balance.  --Beirne (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was entirely reasonable for the tag to be removed (I'm not the one who did it) -- the discussion never went anywhere, there was no active dispute. Anyway much of the "Recent activities" section doesn't fit with your original characterization.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is still hugely biased article against Smithfield. Reviewing the sections:
 * Intro: NPOV
 * Environmental record - Farming: Starts with "Smithfield has come under criticism for the millions of gallons of fecal matter that it produces and stores in holding ponds, untreated." and continues with two paragraphs on what they have done wrong. A short paragraph on ISO certification and another one on something a subsidiary did positive in 2006 hardly balance things out.
 * Environmental record - Disease: Lots of disgusting accusations against Smithfield, with just a denial sentence at the end for "balance".
 * Pig reproduction - Gestation crate: All about the evils of crates at Smithfield.
 * Nursery, finishing buildings, sow cycles: This section appears neutral, although it contains nothing specific to Smithfield and probably belongs in a more general article on pig farming.
 * Legal and labor issues -- Union dispute: all about labor law violations
 * Legal and labor issues -- Justice Department penalty: highlighting a penalty Smithfield had to pay in a merger
 * Recent activities -- Charitable giving: I suppose this is meant for balance, but isn't very noteworthy. Lots of companies give to charity.
 * Recent activities -- Plant closures: The fact is OK but would probably be better in a discussion of their business in general rather than just dropped in.
 * Recent activities -- Sale of Butterball share: OK
 * Recent activities -- Corporate Social Responsibility Report: Smithfield's corporate social responsibility report is not a reliable source, it is a marketing piece put out by the company.
 * Recent activities -- Packaging Reduction: I guess this is nice but seems like propaganda for the company.
 * Humane Society's Undercover Investigation: the HSUS is a dedicated animal advocacy organization. There is nothing wrong with that, but by definition they have an agenda and should not be considered a reliable source.


 * So the only parts that were NPOV were the intro and two news sections in Recent Activities. Otherwise the article is either details on what Smithfield did wrong, or marketing stuff from Smithfield itself.  Using opinionated sources on both sides does not make the article NPOV. The article reads more like something that should be in Wikinews, not an encyclopedia.  The article does not have an impartial tone, as required for NPOV.  --Beirne (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In looking at the article completely as an outsider (Beirne asked me to offer an opinion), the POV tag is definitely necessary. It's not so much that it's mostly negative, but how it's presented and organized.  Most of the info is actually about something else and then it happens to tie in the company.  The Gestation Crates section, for example, has quite a few details to show the reader how bad Gestation Crates are.  This isn't the article about Gestation Crates.  Not only is this pushing a point, but the article actually tells us very little about its primary topic.  In reading it I know very little about where this company came from and who largely deals with it (where does it get its money?  Who is in charge? etc.).  There needs to be some actual history and a much better organization of the article rather than just all the controversies it's been involved in.  --JonRidinger (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a misuse of the tag to add it without trying to improve the article. The tag is meant to be used when efforts to improve it have failed because thwarted in some way. If Beirne and Jon want to add more information about the company, please go right ahead. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 06:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it is a misuse. The article for the template says: "Place this template on an article when you have identified a serious issue of balance and the lack of a WP:Neutral point of view, and you wish to attract editors with different viewpoints to the article. Please immediately explain on the article's talk page why you are adding this tag."  When I added the tag months ago I started this section, and now I have expanded on it.  Reading the same article I see that there was a basis for removing the tag in October, since discussion had stopped, but now discussion has restarted so there was no justification for removing the tag today.  Regarding editing the article, my first step would be to rip everything out except for the intro and two subsections in the Recent Activities section.  While as editors we are supposed to be bold, I figured that would start an edit war, so I wanted to discuss the issues here first. --Beirne (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOVD says: "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You seem to want to add the tag permanently, and wait for someone else to fix the article. That's not an appropriate use. If we were all to tag articles we found POV without trying to fix them, most if not all of WP would be tagged.


 * Why don't you start adding material to the article, so that the negative material is placed in context? That's a better approach than removing material; the latter is easy, but it won't produce a good article. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, the WP:NPOVD article is helpful. Reading through it, I should have used  instead and worked on individual items.  I will wait a bit more for discussion regarding the  and will otherwise make edits as needed.  --Beirne (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also bear in mind that we have to reflect the reliable sources in rough proportion to what they say. This is a company that attracts a lot of negative material in the sources, including in the good ones. We can't engage in original research by deliberately choosing not to reflect that. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's true when there are reliable sources. That isn't always the case, though. For example, the recently added section on the HSUS investigation uses the HSUS, an animal advocacy group as a source, along with a blog posting that passes on the information. the source is essentially primary rather than secondary and is heavily biased primary. The other sources tend to be better, although I'm undecided on The Guardian, a newspaper that I like but one with an agenda. Beyond the sourcing, though, it is a matter of tone and degree. Reading the article it comes across as a slam piece against Smithfield because of the volume and detail on the findings against the company. And yes, it is time for me to get in and edit. --Beirne (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You should look for secondary sources, rather than simply removing the material. . The Guardian is a reliable source. Please don't apply your own opinions to this situation. We're here simply to repeat what reliable sources say. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm allowed to have opinions on the talk page. We all have opinions, it is how they translate into edits in the article that matter.  Regarding the HSUS, I did look and could not find reliable secondary sources, just more blog postings and references to it on advocacy pages.  --Beirne (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a secondary source within seconds of looking for one. Where did you look? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Simply adding content on top of what's there won't totally solve the article's problem, nor will it affect the tone. That said, the addition of a history and a company structure section would be a great start, while removing much of the information about Pig Reporduction would also help. Organizing the issues into a "Controversies" section would also be helpful, but after the basic information about how the company is structured, who they deal with, and history. POV is about presenting an entire article in a neutral tone, not having an equal amount of positive and negative aspects. As SlimVirgin said, we have to go by what's available in reliable sources, however, that does not mean we need to have lots of largely irrelevant material in this article. If people want to read about industrial pig reproduction methods, this is not the place for that. --JonRidinger (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If the sources writing about Smithfield write about those issues, then so do we. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Jon, you said above that Beirne asked you to offer an opinion here. Can you point out where he requested that? I can't see it on your talk page. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know Jon through Wikipedia and sent him an email. I asked him to look at the article, just saying that I was in a POV discussion and asked him to check.  I did not coach him or even state my opinion in the email. Beyond the request we have had no discussions on the topic. --Beirne (talk) 16:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In future, if it's really an NPOV check you're after, it would make sense to ask an experienced editor on wiki, where you don't know them well, and don't know what they're likely to say. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Jon is an experienced editor, and knows Wikipedia procedures better than I do. While I generally agree with what he said, his focus has been on different things than I have brought up, so I really did not know what he would say. Also, it is hard to ask an editor that I do not know to look at something.  Having said that, the solution was the POV-check that I put in this morning.  We will see how that works out.  --Beirne (talk) 17:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, there's some odd editing going on here. The HSUS material is sourced to an ABC News report based on the Associated Press. But Beirne has added a primary sources tag to the section. Can you explain, Beirne? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I missed that change. Please comment your changes in the future. --Beirne (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In response to some earlier points: I share concerns about the sections on charitable giving, CSR, etc., and I suspect they will have to be removed or significantly shortened. I haven't done so yet because of the concerns about balance, but I'm not sure balance is a sufficient reason to retain all that material. As for NPOV, please do keep in mind that this does not mean balance between positive and negative, rather balance in relation to the way the topic is treated in the available sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I posted above that I found a secondary source, and it's clear from the footnote too. Could you answer the question I asked earlier, about where you looked for a secondary source? The ABC News source is the first one that comes up under a Google news search, so I'm having difficultly understanding why you couldn't find one. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I missed your comment in all the nested discussions. You should still comment your changes, as people should not be expected to hunt through the discussion to find the reason for a change.  Regarding your question about finding the source, now you are just badgering me.  I missed it when I looked, and you found it.  I'm not disputing the source now, so what's the problem?  --Beirne (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem is that you've wanted to have a POV tag on here since April, without making an attempt to expand the article to make it (in your view) more neutral. You said you removed the HSUS material because you couldn't find a secondary source for it, even though it's impossible to miss it. You added a primary source tag without reading the section you were tagging. And you've arrived here after having canvassed a wiki-friend by e-mail, and he is suggesting adding a controversy section, which goes against best practice.


 * Good, neutral editing is welcome here, but it has to be policy compliant. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrators
I find it odd that positive referenced materials, per the rules, gets removed every time, but questionable references by activist groups and those opposed to meat consumptions stay. Referenced materials on CSR get routinely deleted despite correct references to unbiased reliable sources such as the magazine Environmental Leader. Answer me why this happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanderanj (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The article needs a serious overhaul. Most of it is Mother Jones-type stuff about how bad Smithfield is, and the balancing material is PR from Smithfield.  NPOV does not mean that the article has both biased sides, it means that it writes about the topic in a neutral fashion. --Beirne (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Even when written in a NPOV, it is deleted. I'm sorry but this is ridiculous. How exactly is stating facts about measurable improvements not viable? Obviously there is a POV being pushed on this site. Xanderanj (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)xanderanj
 * Which part is written in an NPOV? I haven't gone through the whole history, but the last restored portion covered Smithfield's Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Report, which in the article itself says is self-produced. Wikipedia is meant to rely on reliable secondary sources.  The CSR is a PR document.  What it contains may or may not be true, but is a questionable source. And in any case, the point is not to make the article a combination of attacks and rah-rah material, but to write a balanced overview of the company. --Beirne (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The material's not being removed because positive, Xander, but because it reads like propaganda or PR. If it could be rewritten and carefully attributed, there would be no problem. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 01:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo Representation
I wanted to pose a question to the group. The photo representing gestation stalls here is from an animal rights organization, and therefore could be questioned for NPOV. Also, it is unclear if the photo is actually from a Smithfield facility, as it is not marked that way. Is it fair to remove this photo as it is not clearly representative and resides from a animal rights organization? Xanderanj (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the answer you got at the Help Desk is a reasonable one. If the company itself has a different photo that can be used, then fine -- but I see no reason to think it would be different in any meaningful way.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The caption of the picture does not say that it has been taken in a Smithfield facility, so I don't think that it is misleading, merely a representation of what a gestation crate is. There are more pictures available on Commons: commons:Category:Gestation crates. Badzil (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It is my belief that the types of photos supplied by animal rights organizations are taken with a goal in mind. If other options exist from non-animal rights groups, they should be used to provide a non-biased example. It appears other photos are available that accomplish the same goal of showing what gestation stalls are. Xanderanj (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That can go both ways. Certainly don't want to use a photo taken by a farm either, since their goal would be to show their facility in the best possible light. So have to find a photo taken by someone who doesn't have any ax to grind. Perhaps from a university agricultural program or similar?Bob98133 (talk) 12:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The source is Farm Sanctuary, a farm animal welfare society, not an animal rights group. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

By their very definition (taken from your link) they are an animal rights group focused on a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle. "Farm Sanctuary is an American animal protection organization, founded in 1986 as an advocate for farm animals. It promotes laws and policies that support animal welfare, animal protection and vegetarianism/veganism through rescue, education and advocacy." Xanderanj (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's not animal rights. Animal welfare is a very different thing. Xanderanj, do you work for Smithfield Foods or any related organization? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So we are getting into semantics here. Ok, they are not an animal 'rights' group. But they do have a 'welfare' agenda that includes going vegan. Can someone try to bring forward another opinion without instantly being attacked here? I do not work for Smithfield, as I have told you before. I am looking at starting a blog and have been researching various news sources and following the latest hype brought forward by food news. I am simply following the rules of Wikipedia that you have set forward. I'm trying to identify how this all works and I am playing by your rules. Are you a vegetarian SlimVirgin? Xanderanj (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not semantics; there's a big difference between animal rights and animal welfare. As for asking whether you work for Smithfields Foods, or a related group, it's a valid question, because you're a single purpose account. You said in October:


 * "I've been researching Wikipedia and the way it functions, as well as our food system since it is a hotbed issue. I'm thinking of starting a blog. I've also been reading Eating Animals and other articles that make me question today's journalistic approach. I will start editing other articles, but found this one to be rediculously one-sided. I'm new here so I wanted to figure out how this all works.' Xanderanj (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2010"


 * But since then, apart from four industry-related edits elsewhere, this is the only article you've edited, and your edits have been largely to remove material not favorable to Smithfields, even if well-sourced. So that obviously raises the question of whether there's a COI. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand what COI is? Xanderanj (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * As the page says, a COI is a conflict of interest, which is triggered when an editor advances his own interests, or the interests of an outside body or set of ideas, over the interests of Wikipedia. In this case, the interests of Wikipedia are advanced by producing an informative article that fairly reflects the existing body of reliably published material about Smithfield Foods. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link went to collaboration. I do not have a conflict of interest. Do you? Are you a vegetarian or vegan? I proudly consume meat products: some organic, some local, some that are sold in the grocery store and are on sale. Does that make me conflicted? I think not. I edit what I am researching an have knowledge on because that is what I actively research. Xanderanj (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A belief woudn't in itself place you in a conflict of interest, but being paid in connection with the belief or related practices would. Could you say why you removed the link to the video of the Humane Society investigation, for example? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know I did? I was having some issues yesterday with the references in the HSUS section. For some reason at one point it removed portions of a section I wasn't even editting. That is why I had to go in and remove my own post. THe new sub referencing bullets is new to me. Is there a place the discusses sub-references, because it was difficult to add content within that stream. Xanderanj (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you remove that the facilities in North Carolina came under scrutiny in 1999, along with its source?  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So.....about the picture. Has anyone taken Badzil's suggestion and looked at the pictures on Commons: commons:Category:Gestation crates? Any takers there? How about my suggestion of looking at some pictures from a university site?  There's no reason for us to go at each other about what we eat or don't eat.  If we're not going to accept Farm Sanctuary, great. Then we also can't accept a picture taken by Smithfield. So let's find one that meets the best NPOV we can, which.  Take for instance, the pictures here:  http://www.depts.ttu.edu/porkindustryinstitute/SowHousing.htm  I know we need to get permission to use, but would those be pictures that meet our needs here?Bob98133 (talk) 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with sourcing from a university, even some from commons look fine to me. The staged photos, be it from an animal rights/welfare organization, or from a sterilized farm, don't work, in my opinion. Xanderanj (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Xander, could you answer my question, please? SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 18:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The facilities in North Carolina came under scrutiny again in 1999 when Hurricane Floyd flooded a number of ponds holding fecal matter (lagoons, in industry parlance), and many of the hog farms that contracted with Smithfield were accused of polluting the state's rivers.[12] Where does that reference say that these were Smithfield contracts? I see that hog farmers in North Carolina suffered flooding, but I see no Smithfield connection other than they bought operations. That is why I question the 'reaching' on this article and therefore removed it. I have no qualms about the reference except in the way it was worded. Where does it say that last part or anything like it? Xanderanj (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * How would you two feel about any of these as your source on that sentence? http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/settlements/07416/hog-waste.html, http://www.thepigsite.com/articles/221/environmentally-safe-hog-waste-disposal-methods,   http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/151264/Bob98133 (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The first one definelty cuts closer to the point made in the post. Xanderanj (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Image Request - Food
What sort of food image is requested for this article? A Smithfield ham, perhaps? A Country ham? Geoff Who, me?  18:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits made June 26, 2012 are incorrect
Hello all,

I understand that maintaining impartiality is something very important to Wiki, and that is why I posted here instead of correcting this issue myself. I work for Smithfield Foods, and therefore I cannot be seen as an impartial editor.

I happened to come to the page today and when looking at the page's history, I noticed that there were 2 edits made on June 26th, 2012 that should be undone. One edit was to change a quote taken from a news article. The change makes the quote say exactly the opposite of what the article actually says. Can someone please check into this, and once verified, make the change back to the original wording?

The second edit made on that date was to take out a statement from a newspaper regarding Smithfield's progress in the phasing out of gestation stalls on its farms. As the statement was very relevant to the topic at hand, and was cited from a credible third party source, it should not have been removed. Can someone please look into this as well?

Thanks. Kkirkham (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking such a constructive approach to this article. I've reverted the edit to that quotation -- that's an easy one.  I'm a bit more reluctant to restore the prediction about gestation stalls -- given that the prediction looked forward to 2011, it would be better to have something indicating whether that progress was actually accomplished.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow-that was fast! Thanks for your help. Here's a link to the company website, with a graph and text showing that the 30% number was actually achieved. I know this is not a third party source, but I believe corporate websites are seen as credible sources for this factual-type information. I'd be fine with including something like "According to Smithfield's website" or something of that nature if you think that is necessary. Kkirkham (talk) 20:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Revamp
All,

As you can see from my previous post on this talk page, I am an employee of Smithfield Foods. I understand that maintaining impartiality is very important here at Wiki, so I wanted to make sure that my association with the company is clear as I make comments here.

That being said, as I read over this page, I am shocked by the lack of content about the company itself---brands, history, acquisitions, leadership, financial results, etc. I came here to find information about the history of my company, but found that virtually all content included here is related to controversies about methods of hog production and other tangentially related topics. As a reference, check out Kraft Foods' page [], which focuses on the history of the company and its brands, but then also includes a section about controversies associated with the company.

I'd be happy to help however I can in finding the types of information needed to bring this page up to speed, but wanted to take a collaborative approach since I am affiliated with the company. Kkirkham (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to wider attention. I made a couple of relatively minor changes, cutting out some over-the-top material and trying to add add a bit of content for balance. As time avails I'll review the link you provided and see what could be used. Any further sources you can provide will certainly be helpful. Thanks again and happy editing, Doc  Tropics  15:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc, I reverted your edits as the material you removed seems relevant and sourced (if the sources are inadequate, please point that out and we can look for others). With the inspection quote you added, the paragraph already had material from the inspector, and a response. You then added more from the inspector, which seemed to prioritize him.


 * I have no problem if people want to add corporate information, so long the effect is not to displace or remove legitimate criticism. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * With respect, a lurid description of an open waste pit is inappropriate to an encyclopedic description of a single company when most other companies in the industry use the same method. The paragraph containing "...the colour of the waste is pink from excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths, stillborn piglets, drugs and other chemicals." already includes a link to Anaerobic lagoon which covers the topic in appropriate depth and context. It is clearly undue weight to give such attention to it in this article which is about a specific individual company, not about food processing or animal waste in general.
 * I have similar, very justifiable, concerns in other areas but will address them individually at another time. For now I take specific issue with the sentence that includes "...the colour of the waste is pink from excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths, stillborn piglets, drugs and other chemicals." and strongly suggest that it needs to be removed in order to promote a more balanced article. Thanks for your time and attention; I will await your response before proceedeing. Doc   Tropics  17:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The source (who was writing about Smithfield in particular) said of the lagoons that hold the waste:

"According to Tietz, they can overflow when it rains and the liners can be punctured by rocks. Tietz writes that the area around one slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of lagoons, each thirty feet deep; the colour of the waste is pink from excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths, stillborn piglets, drugs and other chemicals."

It would be POV to retain the first sentence but to remove the second. There is otherwise no indication as to what the problem is with the lagoons if they overflow, what they contain and how many of them there are. Environmental pollution is one of the major issues that the sources who write about Smithfield address. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While stipulating that Tietz's description may be accurate, I maintain that is is not relevant or appropriate for inclusion in this specific article. It might be appropriate in articles that address waste pits, disposal methods, and even "environmental pollution". However, including such lurid details in articles about individual companies is undue weight and give the appearance of favoring a sociopolitical POV over neutral facts. I accept that you believe differently and am interested to see what responses we might receive from other editors. This page would certainly benefit from a broader range of input. Doc   Tropics  18:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's directly relevant to how the company earns its money. It has created a production line of pigs (and they happily acknowledge this, calling it "vertical integration"). The pigs are kept for their whole lives in slatted cages/facilities, so that any and all waste drops between the slats. This includes the obvious (the urine, excrement and blood), and the not-so-obvious (stillbirths, hormones and chemicals). All this is collected and stored in 30-foot-deep lagoons the size of football pitches or larger, with the constant threat of it spilling into the air, soil, and the rest of the surrounding environment.


 * This is a major environmental issue, so to call two sentences about it UNDUE is odd. If anything, the article could use more information on how Smithfield handles this material over the long term, and what the local government responses have been. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Also, just to make a point about UNDUE. It does not refer to what any given editor believes. It refers to what the sources are saying. So the question for us is: when reliable sources write about Smithfield Foods, what issues do they tend to cover? Those are the issues that we should include.


 * This is not as easy as it sounds, because finding the most comprehensive and appropriate sources is difficult. But those are the sources that the article should seek to reflect. We can also include Smithfield's view of itself, while making sure that the article does not become an extension of the company's website. Doc, if you want to add corporate information, I have no problem with that. But I do have a problem with you removing material from other sources that would not be found on the company's website. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In the vein of adding corporate type information, I've added brands and leadership sections to the article. Kkirkham (talk) 14:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I've incorporated the list of brands into the first section, and I added a couple of examples of the speciality and international brands. I moved the list of corporate officers to the end. We already have the key names in the first section. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kkirkham, thank you for acknowledging that you work for Smithfield Foods. Our conflict of interest guideline can be read at WP:COI, and a simplified version can be found at Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. This advises employees of companies to "[c]learly state your background and goals on your userpage," and to follow the advice at COI declaration. This would include whether you work in a PR capacity for the company. The guideline also encourages employees not to edit the article in question directly, but to request edits on the talk page. Alternatively, a user subpage can be created (e.g. User:Kkirkham/sandbox), and any proposed edits can be made there. Then you can request their addition to the article. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have edited my user page to disclose my employment with the company as you asked. I was told on the NPOV noticeboard that I am allowed to edit the article myself, as long as I follow the COI guidelines, which I believe I did.I'm not quite sure why the leadership of the company should be moved to the end as it is important and basic information about the company. Only two members of the executive team are mentioned in the first section. I'm also not sure why my organization of the brands was changed--a separate section is certainly warranted for this information, and a bulleted list is effective and customary for displaying this type of information. (For example, see the Kraft Foods article). Kkirkham (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the edits to your user page. The guidelines that govern COI are the ones I posted above, rather than the NPOV noticeboard. If you read those, you'll find a description of best practice for company employees.


 * As for the list, we don't include long lists in the middle of articles, because to do that pushes the rest of the text further down the page. If you've seen it done in other articles, it's those pages that ought to be changed. Personally, I can't see a need to include all the names anywhere on the page, because it's the kind of corporate detail that people can find on the company website if they want it, but I retained them anyway.


 * The important point is that the article can't become an extension of the company's website. It's intended to be an encyclopedia article that mostly reflects what secondary sources have written about Smithfield, not what Smithfield has written about itself. Wikipedia articles are meant to be based on secondary sources as far as possible. Primary sources are allowed but they should not dominate. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Kraft Foods does contain a bulleted list of brands, but they're quite far down the page, not at the top. The problem with your edit was that the bulleted lists were pushing the article's text too far down. The Kraft list also links to List of Kraft brands. We can create such a subpage for Smithfield, if you want (List of Smithfield brands) then link to it here summary-style. If you make the edits to a user subpage (such as User:Kkirkham/sandbox), I'd be willing to create the page for you. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Kkirkham, in case you're finding our guidelines confusing, there's a Wikipedia article about this issue at Conflict of interest editing on Wikipedia, which gives a history of COI editing that has come to light, the community's response to it, and the PR community's response. That should give you an idea of current concerns and best practice. As it says, the key issues are transparency, sticking to the policies/guidelines, and not editing the articles in question directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

POV Template
I am adding the POV Template to this article as suggested by TFD (talk) on the NPOV noticeboard because of concerns that negative tangentially-related material dominates this article without context. I hope to gain some third-party perspective on the article by adding other editors to the mix. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove the POV tag, for two reasons. First, I've directed you to the guidelines about COI that advise paid advocates not to edit articles directly (see the section above). Second, NPOV tags are meant to be added as a last resort. See NPOV dispute:


 * "The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies ... Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort."


 * In addition, you weren't transparent about your role in the company until yesterday, giving the impression (here and on the NPOV noticeboard) that you were a regular Smithfield employee who came here to learn about Smithfield's history (e.g. ). You then added to the top of the article two sections consisting only of bulleted lists of brands and corporate officers, which served to push criticism of the company further down the page.  A few years ago a PR rep published advice about how to edit Wikipedia on behalf of clients, which included the advice to add several sections of corporate detail to the top of the article to push material the company didn't like "below the fold." When I added the brands to the first section and moved the list of corporate officers to the end,  you added the POV tag.


 * Having said all this, I'm perfectly willing to start again and work with you to improve the article. First, we should identify whether there are errors on the page. Contrary to your claims that I'm the page's "custodian," most of it was not written by me; I've made only 64 edits to it in five years. So I'd be happy to have your assistance in identifying mistakes.


 * Next we should identify what the key secondary sources are (whether newspapers, and if so is there a newspaper of record – such as local newspapers that keep track of Smithfield Foods news – or a business journal, or academic sources?). We should then identify whether any important context is missing, or any relevant corporate information. (But note: we can't turn the page into an extension of Smithfield's website.)


 * If you're willing to work with me on this, I think we could produce an article that would be to everyone's satisfaction. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

I had no intention of misleading anyone as to my role in the company--I am an employee and did first come to the page simply to learn about my company's history. Once I discovered the state of the article, though, I wanted to correct the many falsehoods contained here. The reason I added the POV tag was that it was the advice I received on the NPOV noticeboard from editors who knew I was an employee of the company. The tag also helps because I would like to get some third-party assistance on the article from other editors. I'm happy to work together but I want to get help from other editors as well, because I was looking through your contribs and saw that you have edited many articles on animal rights, veganism, etc. (including these articles just since June: Veganism, Speciesism, Animal Rights, "Animals, Property, and the Law," History of Animal Rights, Moral Status of Animals in the Ancient World, The Case for Animal Rights, "Animals, Men, and Mortals," List of Animal Rights Advocates, Vegan Prisoners Support Group, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Defense League, Primate Freedom Project, The Vegan Society of Ireland, Animal Legal Defense Fund, Party for the Animals, Animal Justice Party, etc) and so I want to get the attention of a wider range of editors so we can compile/fix the article together. How do you think we should go about doing so? Kkirkham (talk) 13:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I outlined how best to approach this above. As for my edits, if you look through the articles I've written, you'll see a wide range of topics, including several featured articles. I'm quite capable of editing neutrally (and I hope, relatively well), regardless of my personal views, and I'm very familiar with the content policies.


 * So, to move on to improving the article, can you list the factual errors in the article (the "many falsehoods" you refer to above)? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I restored the POV tempalte because 2 different editors, myself and Kkirkham, have both identified POV issues with the article that are not yet resolved. In particular, Tietz does not seem to be a reliable source for this topic; his article is little more than a rant against animal processing in general, and Smithfield in particular. He is neither scholarly nor neutral and the content drawn from him should be removed. I posted a specific question here at the RS noticeboard and await responses from neutral uninvolved editors. Doc   Tropics  17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Tietz is an investigative journalist who has written for The New Yorker and Harper's, among others, and whose work has several times won or been nominated for significant awards. I think you ought to exercise more caution in the way you describe living people on public pages.


 * Neither you nor KKirkham have identified any POV issues or any errors (despite my having asked three times for a list of errors, not one has yet been identified). A POV issue is not something that you don't like. To identify a POV issue, such as UNDUE, you would have to be familiar with the topic and its sources, because UNDUE applies to focusing on issues that the reliable sources do not focus on (as much or at all). But, as even a cursory reading of the sources shows, they do focus on the environmental issues that Tietz raises.


 * You added the POV tag only because the Smithfield Foods Social Media Manager asked you to, and he requested that because his bulleted list of corporate officers was moved to the end. That is not an appropriate use of the tag, per WP:NPOV dispute. The way to resolve disputes is to stick closely to the policies and best practice. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You need to be more careful how you depict other editors and their actions. Several times now you have insulted me by stating either implicitly or explicitly that my edits are either controlled or influenced by Kkirkham. This is a base lie and a personal attack which I will not tolerate any more.


 * I became involved with this page because Kkirkham posted this request at the NPOV noticeboard. After personally reviewing the article I concluded that it was unbalanced and included biased content being given undue weight. I have never previously encountered Kkirkham, have no outside contact with the editor, and I am not being compensated or influenced in any way whatsoever.


 * Contrary to your further lies, I have brought several specific points to this talkpage. I am still waiting for those issues to be commented on by someone who is not a well-known animal rights activist. Doc  Tropics  00:02, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I do not think that factual accuracy is a problem with the article, but there does appear to be a problem of neutrality. Just to take one section, "Swine flu".  While the section says the "no link" was found between the company and the outbreak of swine flu, it basically  makes the case for the prosecution by detailing all the reasons it came under suspicion:  "headaches, and wild doges had been eating pig carcasses that were lying in the open... swarms of files around waste lagoons".  Even the final sentence, saying "Smithfield denied any responsibility", makes them look at fault.  (Well they would say that wouldn't they.)  Although the paragraph mentions that the accusations were originally raised by the Mexican media, it does not explain the context, that Mexico had been (probably wrongly) blamed for the outbreak.  A neutral reporting of this incident could be, "During the H1N1 outbreak, articles in the Mexican media blamed Smithfield, but health officials found no link."  I also think the article implies that the practices followed by Smithfield compare unfavorably with the industry in general.  TFD (talk) 15:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the swine flu section to add more attribution and a longer response from Smithfield. Let me know if you still see a problem with it.

The earliest confirmed case of swine flu during the 2009 flu pandemic was in a five-year-old boy in La Gloria, Mexico. La Gloria lies in the Perote Valley, near several facilities operated by Granjas Carroll de Mexico, a Smithfield Foods subsidiary that processes 1.2 million pigs a year and employs 907 people. According to The Washington Post, 616 residents of La Gloria – over 28 percent of the population – became ill from a respiratory disease in March that year, and several newspapers linked Smithfield's farming practices to the outbreak.

Local residents alleged that the company regularly violates local environmental regulations. According to the Post, local farmers had complained for years about headaches from the smell of the pig farms, and said that wild dogs had been eating discarded pig carcasses left lying in the open; Smithfield uses biodigesters to convert dead pigs into renewable energy, but residents allege that they regularly overflow. Residents also feared that the waste stored in the lagoons would leak into the groundwater. Smithfield said in a statement that it had found no clinical signs of swine flu in its pigs or employees in Mexico, and had no reason to believe that the outbreak was connected to its Mexican facilities. The company said it routinely administers flu virus vaccine to its swine herds in Mexico and conducts monthly tests to detect the virus.


 * I do see a problem with this edit. First, you took out the sentence that health officials found no connection between the virus and pig farms in the area. Second, the respiratory illness you mention that affected 616 members of the population was discovered to be the seasonal flu, with the exception of the 5-year-old who was diagnosed with H1N1. (This is noted in the next sentence in the article sourced). Third, the environmental details you mention here are not relevant to the H1N1 outbreak, and are therefore not appropriate in this section. Seems to me that much of this would be more relevant on the separate H1N1 article that can be linked from this page. I think the suggested language for this section made by TFD earlier in this conversation is more appropriate--- "During the H1N1 outbreak, articles in the Mexican media blamed Smithfield, but health officials found no link." Thoughts? Kkirkham (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * TFD's proposed wording is accurate and concise; it addresses the issue without giving it undue weight. I would strongly support TFD's version over either the previous or SV's rewrite above. Doc  Tropics  20:52, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (to Kkirkham) Fixed. As for reducing it one sentence, that would not reflect the coverage (see for example 2009 flu pandemic in Mexico), and it wasn't only in the Mexican media. I'm not aware that health officials know what caused the pandemic. There are some scholarly sources that mention the reported link; I'll look though them to see how up-to-date they are. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

As Kirkham has argued that some of the section is not related to swine flu, I've changed the header and the order of the text, so the section now reads:

===Operations in Mexico=== The earliest confirmed case of the H1N1 virus (swine flu) during the 2009 flu pandemic was in a five-year-old boy in La Gloria, Mexico, near several facilities operated by Granjas Carroll de Mexico, a Smithfield Foods subsidiary that processes 1.2 million pigs a year and employs 907 people. This, together with tension between the company and the local community over Smithfield's environmental record, prompted several newspapers to link the outbreak to Smithfield's farming practices. According to The Washington Post, over 600 other residents of La Gloria became ill from a respiratory disease in March that year (later thought to be seasonal flu). The Post writes that health officials found no link between the farms and the H1N1 outbreak. Smithfield said that it had found no clinical signs of swine flu in its pigs or employees in Mexico, and had no reason to believe that the outbreak was connected to its Mexican facilities. The company said it routinely administers flu virus vaccine to its swine herds in Mexico and conducts monthly tests to detect the virus.

Residents alleged that the company regularly violates local environmental regulations. According to the Post, local farmers had complained for years about headaches from the smell of the pig farms, and said that wild dogs had been eating discarded pig carcasses left lying in the open. Smithfield uses biodigesters to convert dead pigs into renewable energy, but residents allege that they regularly overflow. Residents also feared that the waste stored in the lagoons would leak into the groundwater.

If Smithfield responded to the point about the smell, the fear of leaks, and the biodigesters, we can add that too. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for a list of errors
I've requested this a few times with no response, so in case the questions are getting lost in the discussion, I'm opening a section devoted to identifying errors so they can be fixed. Kkirkham, you wrote above that the article contains "many falsehoods," so I would appreciate it if you could begin to list them here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest not responding to Slim Virgin at this particular time. Better to wait until there is more participation from neutral unbiased editors which will facilitate productive dialogue. Doc  Tropics  00:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * such a suggestion fails completely the main concept of Wikipedia that it is a collaborative effort to create a factual encyclopedia based on reliable sources. If one fails to specifically identify their concerns when asked, then it becomes clear that one's reasons for being here are NOT supportive of the Wikipedia project and ideals.-- The Red Pen of Doom  15:54, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If there are specific errors then I am sure that no one would object to their removal. However, I think that the issue is neutrality - how facts and opinions are presented.  TFD (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. From my understanding, Doc Tropics was not suggesting that collaboration on identifying falsehoods in the article is not productive, but rather that we wait until we had the attention of more editors before we delve into the issues. I'm happy to provide specific instances of inaccurate material if helpful, but as TFD mentioned, I think the issue being discussed now is the general neutrality and structure of the article. Let me know if/how I can help, Kkirkham (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * So you can start with identifying some of your concerns about where and how content is being presented in inappropriate mannger. If you want to deal with several, then it may be a good idea to start subsections for each. -- The Red Pen of Doom  16:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it makes the most sense to start with the issues brought up by TFD and Doc Tropics in earlier sections on this talk page. Kkirkham (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm extremely pleased to see new editors giving attention to this article and look forward to open and honest collaboration in working towards improvements. TFD and Kkirkham have correctly interpreted the situation as primarily an issue of neutrality, and I also see undue weight in the presentation of some of the negative facts and opinions.

No one is attempting to "whitewash" the article, but the current content seems...disproportionately negative. As TheRedPenOfDoom points out, the best way to move forward is by identifying individual points of contention and addressing them specifically, one at a time. Rather than adding new dialogue to older sections, it seems better to start new sections for each point.

Having said that, I'm not actually sure where best to start, and I would defer to Kkirkham as the original "complainant" for suggestions there. One point that seems certain is the need to examine the content from Tietz which appears both excessive and unreliable, as his article contained numerous factual errors. However we proceed from here, I do indeed look forward mutual participation and cooperation. Doc  Tropics  19:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Doc, it was you who added the POV tag after Kkirkham asked you to, and restored it twice, once after an uninvolved editor removed it. So you need to explain what changes should be made within the policies, rather than referring to other editors or trying to remove a piece of investigative journalism that the RS board confirmed counts as a reliable source. (Tietz is cited just three times; arguably the article ought to expand on his material, not contract it even further.) I'd appreciate it if you would adhere to NPOV dispute, which says that the editor who adds the tag must point to specific issues that are actionable within the policies.


 * Again, I ask for examples of the "many falsehoods" and "inaccurate material" that Kkirkham says are in the article so they can be fixed. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I am saddened to see an editor actually post NOT TO RESPOND to an involved editor in this discussion. I find that to be extremely disruptive to this process. I am further disheartened to see that instead of bringing forth secondary sources of equal weight and validity to counter information that has been reliably sourced that an author is being discussed in a manner that appears simply to try to discredit that writer. I suggest limiting further comment on Tietz in this manner and start supplying sources to counter his claims as is Wikipedia policy. --Amadscientist (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong about Tietz's piece. It appears to be quite important to this subject and won awards for its investigative journalism. It seems to me that Kkirkham is being exceptionally biased in trying to remove the article and I don't know why Doc Tropics is facilitating this. Silver  seren C 22:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Silverseren, I just wanted to point out that I have never asked for the removal of Tietz's article. Kkirkham (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * That's true, sorry for that. Doc is the one that appears to be pushing that. However, you don't appear to have presented any reliable sources for this article to be improved by. You said it should be expanded up at the top, but just saying that doesn't really help with anything. I agree with you that it should be expanded. With the other sections added as they should be, the current sections on controversy will be represented in the right length in relation to the rest of the article. Clearly, they take up a bit much of the article right now, but it's not the problem of the sections, but the lack of other sections in the article. Silver  seren C 19:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Silverseren (and others), I'm going to put together a list of other third-party sources that I think are relevant to this conversation, and will post here when I've had the chance to pull them together. Sorry for my delay---I haven't had too much time to devote to this recently. Thanks for being willing to hear my perspective. Kkirkham (talk) 21:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

(out) It would be helpful if we could find any current books or articles published in academic or trade magazines that could be used. "Smithfield's journey to sustainability: A work in progress" (2011) looks like it could be helpful for some parts of the article, but I cannot access it. Smithfield: Ham Capital of the World (2004) could be a source for history. The Vault Guide To The Top Consumer Products Employers (2005) looks helpful, although it would be better to have something more current. TFD (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There was some confusion earlier about the content policies, and how to achieve "balance," so it's worth mentioning what we mean when we talk about "neutrality" on Wikipedia. To write an article that conforms to the policies, we ask: "When secondary sources write about Smithfield Foods, which topics do they focus on, and what do they say about those topics?" We then try to mirror that coverage – by summarizing the content and by roughly reflecting the percentage of coverage that secondary sources give to the issues – so that our article becomes an overview of the literature. I've been looking around at the secondary sources (academic sources, and high-quality journalism and books), and I've added a selection to the FR section for future use. The main topics are:


 * vertical integration system and its consequences
 * environmental record (air and water pollution from the lagoons)
 * animal welfare (where they are kept, the rate at which they are killed, the use of gestation crates, the use of antibiotics)
 * workers' rights (low-paid, often immigrants, high turnover, the nature of the work)
 * size and history of the company (the acquisitions, expansion outside the US)
 * effect on local farmers
 * food safety


 * So those are the issues the article should focus on. (If anyone would like to add a topic, please do). TFD, the article already uses The Vault Guide as a source, and the article, "Smithfield's journey to sustainability", is something we can use, but the author has worked as a PR consultant for Smithfield Foods, so it's not a secondary source. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Though do note that we only do that to a certain extent. There are certain formatting and organization standards that we follow. In that sense, we should be looking at other similar articles that have reached Featured or Good level status and see how they are organized and what kind of sections are included. For example, most of the stuff you listed sounds like it would go under a Controversies of Criticisms sections, but there are also a number of other kinds of sections that should also be included in a company article. We also want to be careful that we aren't making the article too filled up with negative information, regardless of how much source coverage there is. Because then the article becomes a screed and not a neutral depiction. Silver  seren C 01:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We should just reflect the literature, and stick to the NPOV policy and UNDUE, without thinking in terms of "good" or "bad." What's good or bad depends on the reader anyway, and a couple of these issues are quite nuanced. The thing to avoid is original research or UNDUE violations (as in, "we have mentioned five 'bad' things, in some people's opinion, so now we have to search for five 'good' things") or vice versa. This is a common mistake, and a couple of editors posting earlier seemed to think that's how we normally write things. I understand that it's a temptation (I've done it myself), but it leads to odd-looking articles.


 * Anyway, the best thing is to start listing secondary sources, then it will be clearer what the majority and minority views and issues are. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Question about brands
Some questions for Kkirkham: in trying to summarize the Smithfield brands, I found I didn't understand what the company means by "gourmet foods" or "core brands," so I wasn't able to summarize. Could you explain more how those terms are being used? For example, by "core" do they mean in the United States, and is that judged by amount sold (i.e. these are the best-selling brands in the United States)? And by "gourmet," is it referring to the speciality brands, or something else? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

References and Further reading
I'm moving the "References" and "Further reading" sections here to the talk page, because they shouldn't just be two huge lists in the article. They can be kept here and put into the article when they're actually going to be used as inline citations. Silver seren C 04:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The References are used as inline citations; hence the word "references." And the FR section is just that: further reading. Please don't remove these again. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The References that are used as inline citations are cited as "Notes" at the bottom of the article. Why do we need to list the same references twice by including this list? Kkirkham (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We list the inline citations in the Notes section, along with commentary and "see also" links. Often these are written as shortened refs (and some are already); I'm in the process of converting them. We then list the references in alphabetical order so that people have an overview of them.
 * Why would you and Silver Seren want to remove them? I don't think I have ever seen anyone do that, in several years of editing.


 * As for removing all the "further reading" sources, except for the Smithfield links, I am left speechless. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have never, ever seen a duplication of references in the manner you are doing it, unless you mean listing book author and year and using that as the ref and linking to the notes. If you're going to do it that way, which you might be doing from the way it is organized, then fine, but you don't need it in the article while you do that. Move them over one by one once their ready.


 * Secondly, there is absolutely no need to have such a lengthy further reading section. Unless you're planning to use them as references (and then they should be in the references section), further reading is only supposed to have a very few things that act as general overviews of major topics related to the subject. Though, often, further reading sections aren't needed at all in articles because they would have been used as references instead, as they should be.


 * And the Smithfield links should be in an external links section, not in further reading. And i'm going to remove them again. You can keep stuff here on the talk page and move it in one by one as you work, you don't need to have a huge mess directly in the article. Silver  seren C 21:55, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Really, I don't see the need for it. That sort of ref formatting was only supposed to be done with books. Why don't you just include the formatted refs themselves in the references section? Silver  seren C 22:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The references are not duplicated; there are short refs in Notes, and long refs in References. Even if there were repetition, it's still quite standard to add an alphabetical list. Do not remove them again, please. As for FR, these are useful links, so please explain what the problem is rather than continuing to remove them. You are removing Pulitzer Prize winning journalism, but retaining links from Smithfield Foods. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, you can't just ignore SilverSeren's concerns and keep reverting his edits. You say this is standard practice, but SilverSeren is saying he has never seen it done before. Maybe we should get more editors involved using DR or RFC? Kkirkham (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've written a lot of articles, and all or most of the well-developed ones use that citation system. Here's just one example -- Bradley Manning. Look at the list of featured articles on WP (WP:FA) and you will see it in many if not most of them. Can you explain why you would not want the article to contain an alphabetical list of references? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert on this issue and would like to leave it up to other editors to decide what the best practices are on this issue. I'd like to see what SilverSeren has to say about it, since he was the one with objections. I think the structure you've provided is repetitive/unnecessary, but if it truly is a best practice then it follows that we should do it.


 * One thing that does concern me though is the "See Also" section. It only includes one link, and it seems to me that this section is unnecessary, and that the link provided could simply be put under the Further Reading section along with the other reference materials. Thoughts? Kkirkham (talk) 14:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Vertical Integration Section
As I was reading the article today, I noticed that the second paragraph under vertical integration has nothing to do with the vertical integration concept. Additionally, the articles listed for Further Information on the section are also not related to Vertical Integration. Wanted to see what other editors thought of this section. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Photos
All,

I wanted to propose changing the photos in the article. I noticed that it was added to the captions of the photos that the facilities shown were not known to be Smithfield's, so I thought it might be better to have photos from our actual facilities.

Additionally, the logo shown at the top of the page is not our registered logo (our registered logo is in black text), so I thought I would provide that file for use as well.

See what you all think

Gestation Stall: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/42/GestationStall.JPG

Farm/CAFO: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e8/FinishingFarm.JPG

Logo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4c/SmithfieldFoods.jpg

Kkirkham (talk) 13:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a copy of the logo in a vector format like svg? This would be preferable.  I'm going to boldly remove the gestation crate image that's currently in the article, as we don't have any particular evidence that it reflects conditions at Smithfield. I don't see any problems with the current CAFO image.  I am similarly disinclined to include the two pictures that you provide, as it (I assume falsely) gives the impression that Smithfield pigs are always freshly bathed.  a13ean (talk) 16:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I have the logo file in .eps vector format, but Wiki wouldn't allow me to upload that file format. I'll see if I can dig up an svg file from anywhere, and will upload it if/when I find one. I'm okay with keeping the CAFO image if you don't think my photos are appropriate/representative. Thanks for your edits and thoughts, Kkirkham (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I also forgot to add that I'm happy to help provide any corporate-type photos we think could be appropriate in the article--I was thinking one of the corporate headquarters might be appropriate? Or possibly a photo of a Smithfield ham? Open to suggestions, Kkirkham (talk) 17:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (two edit conflicts) The gestation stalls all look the same, so there's no reason to remove the one currently in the article, unless Kkirkham wants to arrange a release for the one above. We can only use free (i.e. released) images in this article, except for the logo. Any released images would need to be owned by Smithfield Foods (i.e. they must be the copyright owners), then released under a free licence, such as a Creative Commons Attribution licence. Or if the images were taken independently of Smithfield Foods, they must be released by the photographer.


 * I can explain how to write a release if Kkirkham is able to obtain any images; see Image use policy for starters, though our image policies/guidelines are very complex, so it would be easier just to ask for advice on this page. I don't mind using Smithfield images so long as they don't appear atypical.


 * It would also be good to have free images of the lagoons that the article discusses, the CAFOs from the outside, and an image of the Smithfield head office for the company profile section. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can obtain any permissions needed to use the photos I provided. I appreciate your suggestions for additional photos to include in the article; I'll see what I can do about providing those. I'd like to hear a response from A13ean about his rationale for removing the current photo, as I think he had a valid point and support his decision to remove the current gestation stall photo. Kkirkham (talk) 18:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with the image of the current gestation stall, in your view? BTW, the one you provided above is not an image of a gestation stall, according to the video you took it from. Also, if we are going to use a Smithfield image/video of one of their gestation stalls, it would make sense to consider placing a non-Smithfield image/video of the same thing directly below it. I have seen the video you took the image from, and I think it would benefit from having another perspective nearby for that particular issue, given how contentious it is. Temple Grandin, for example, is interviewed at the start as though she approves in general, whereas she has come out strongly against gestation stalls. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * As for images in general, if you can obtain releases from the legal department (i.e. if you obtain confirmation that the company and not the photographer owns the copyright, and that you are empowered to release the images), the best thing is to upload them with these words: "I act on behalf of the copyright holder of this image, and I hereby release it under a Creative Commons Attribution licence". Then please give as much information as you can about the image (date taken, what it is exactly), unless it is obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * @KKirkham -- depending on what type of eps it is, it may be very easy to convert it to svg. I think that the image of gestation stalls which was previously in the article is a bit too over the top and may depict a bit of a "worst case" scenario.  That alone might not be too much, but the fact that it's not even known to belong to Smithfield pushes it beyond what can reasonably be included in the article without making it too undue or pov.  @SV -- the stalls may all be identical, but it's clear that's not what's at issue here -- it's the state of the pigs in it.  If this becomes a sticking point we should RFC it, but I think it's pretty undue to have it in.  a13ean (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "worst case scenario." The stalls are always the same size to the best of my knowledge (6.6 ft x 2.0 ft), and the sows grow to be the same size. As they grow, they have less and less space. The image in the article shows a sow lying on her side, which is apparently how they prefer to lie. People knowledgeable about these crates say that the sows eventually reach a size where they can't even do that, and have to stand or lie on their chests, so this photograph is not a worst case.


 * It might be useful to watch the Smithfield Foods video that Kkirkham linked to, and to compare it to the Humane Society of the United States video. They portray a very different situation. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * SV, Sows do not all grow to be the same size--they vary in size just as humans do. The pigs photographed here are certainly not being cared for well, and the situation photographed would not meet the animal care standards on any of our farms. As to the video you mentioned, we have an investigative report which gives an extremely detailed response to that video on www.smithfieldfoodstoday.com, signed by Dr. Temple Grandin. The image in question is provided by an animal activist group, does not depict a Smithfield facility, and should not be used in the article. Kkirkham (talk) 14:04, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you don't like the current image, we can use another of our generic ones until we obtain a Smithfield one. We have File:Gestation crate pig showing stereotype.JPG, File:Gestation-crates.jpg, File:Gestcrate1.png. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This image is much better, and much more typical of what the stalls look like. Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 14:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. a13ean (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why was this photo changed again, after we agreed the previous one was good? SV, if you are going to make changes like this while the page's status is disputed, please justify them here on the talk page. Kkirkham (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

2010 Humane Society investigation
Smithfield Foods 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. Silver  seren C 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.


 * Cattle Network Article


 * FeedStuffs Article
 * Kkirkham (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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 "[the] 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 ΔόξατωΘεώ 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 ΔόξατωΘεώ 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/wiki/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 (talk) 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/wiki/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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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 (talk) 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)


 * I think the re-write is fine and also that it is biased to present the current image which does not appear to be representative of animal treatment as described by the state veterinarian. While I appreciate opposition to intensive farming, I think that the article overemphasizes this issue.  TFD (talk) 18:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, TFD. Would you be willing to make the changes you suggested (the rewrite of the first sentence and changing the photo)? As an employee of the company, I try to avoid making edits myself wherever possible, so I'd appreciate it if you wanted to make those changes yourself, or of course we can ask for more feedback if you're not quite confident in them. Let me know how I can help, Kkirkham (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I put in Kkirkham's text. We need to resolve which if any image to use. Does anyone know if Smithfield or a third party has confirmed the Humane Society picture as accurate? I do not think the it is appropriate because it may not be representative. I would like to hear from other editors though and then consider getting further input from WP:NPOVN. TFD (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I have raised the issue of which image to use at the neutrality noticeboard. TFD (talk) 09:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)


 * TFD--SlimVirgin has reverted your text edits to the section and made some edits of her own without posting a rationale here. I'm relatively new to Wiki so I'm not totally sure of etiquette, but that seems inappropriate to me? Kkirkham (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Lagoons at Farms and Processing Facilities
All,

I wanted to raise an issue for discussion regarding the Housing and Lagoons and Environmental Record sections. Much of the information about our anaerobic lagoons is, while cited to a Rolling Stone article, simply untrue. How should we handle the fact that this information is inaccurate? For example, the paragraph states "The area around one slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of these lagoons" which is a direct quote from the article. However, this is simply false. Our processing facilities normally have 1-2 lagoons, and the max number any facility has in our system is 3.

The Clean Water Act requires that any waste from our processing facility must either meet a very stringent level of requirements to allow the water to be directly discharged into a local waterway, or (most commonly) for all waste from our facility to be partially treated at our facility and then directly delivered to a municipal waste treatment plant for further treatment (just like our human waste). Not doing this would result in a fine for the company and a Notice of Violation to be issued.

The section also says that the lagoon "overflows when it rains and that the liners can be punctured by rocks." In reality, there are extremely stringent federal and state regulations within the Clean Water Act that prohibit a lagoon from even nearing the point where it could overflow. Non-compliance results in a Notice of Violation (of which our farms received zero in 2011, even though we operate hundreds of farms throughout the country). The puncturing of liners is extremely unusual, but if that were to occur, federal regulations would require a corrective action plan to be developed and a repair of the lagoon would be required.

In addition, the Environmental Record section states that the material is untreated in these lagoons. This is also simply false. Nutrient management is a complex science, and these lagoons use naturally-occurring bacteria to treat the manure. With this treatment system, we achieve up to 95 percent reductions in volatile solids and 85 percent reductions in biological oxygen demand (a common measure of the amount of oxygen necessary for bacteria to break down organic material in water). What remains is an anaerobically digested, low-solids effluent product that is highly suitable for use as an organic fertilizer and is applied for that purpose.

All of these requirements can be found in the Clean Water Act, found here: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45

How should we handle these issues? Thanks, Kkirkham (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Kkirkham, Frankly, your saying that information from legitimate sources is false isn't enough to have something changed. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.  The only way you'll be able to get this changed or removed is by finding legitimate sources that refute the information in the articles you question.  Bob98133 (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Well put, Bob98133. Now: sign me up as a cynic on the subject of the reliability of Rolling Stone. On the Wikipedia page about Rolling Stone, I see such phrasing as "Rolling Stone is ... devoted to music, liberal politics, and popular culture" and "Rolling Stone is known for its political coverage which began in the 1970s by the enigmatic and controversial gonzo journalist, Hunter S. Thompson" and "The magazine is now known for its strong liberal bent." I conclude that Kkirkham's refutations of a Rolling Stone article's claims are no less reliable than that which he refutes; considering his cautiousness and free participation here, I see them as considerably more reliable.  SteveT (talk)  02:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input--I totally agree with Bob98133 that just because I say something doesn't necessarily make it true and credible. The regulations I reference, however, are publicly available and verifiable at the link I provided to the Clean Water Act, and can definitely be used as a source to refute what the Rolling Stone article said. As far as how many lagoons are at our facilities, it's a little trickier to refute---what I've said here is true and can be verified simply by looking at Google maps satellite images of our processing facilities, but there have not been any articles written (to my knowledge) about the subject. I will look around to see if I can find something out in the public domain that documents it. It is frustrating, though, that Rolling Stone can say something false (with no proof) and it is still counted as a credible source, but statements from us cannot be counted as such without documented proof. Kkirkham (talk) 14:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I must agree with Kkirkham on this point: it seems problematic that an obviously inaccurate article from a biased source is considered RS, but the company's response, while demonstrably true, is automatically deemed unreliable. This sure looks like a double standard in how our policies are applied. Not exactly an even playing field is it? Doc  Tropics  17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * This type of issue has come up on other articles. I think the policy that is most appropriate is neutrality.  We need to assign the weight one would expect in high quality sources, and it would be helpful to identify some for this article.  That usually resolves problems of factuality, because  secondary sources can weigh and compare original claims.  It would be helpful to have better sources and they need not be in the public domain.  TFD (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi TFD--I'm not sure I quite understand what you mean here. Are you saying that you'd like me to identify some sources for our number of lagoons, even if they are not in the public domain? Kkirkham (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought by public domain you meant not protected by copyright. There must be high quality sources such as studies in academic books and journals in business, agricultural sciences and other disciplines which may not appear on the web or may require payment to view.  Smithfield Foods should be aware of any.  TFD (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Got it--I'll look for such sources that verify the number of lagoons we operate. Each one is permitted by the federal and state governments, so I'm thinking there will likely be some kind of official record surrounding them. Thanks for the help and clarification.Kkirkham (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Removal of sources and sourced material
Doc Tropics has again removed material and several reliable sources (including The New York Times and the Associated Press) that were removed weeks ago by The Four Deuces  at the request of Kkirkham (for Smithfield Foods).

I asked The Four Deuces at the time why he had removed them, and he said he had done so in error, so I don't know why Doc Tropics has repeated that edit. I would ask Kkirkham please to stop removing sources, or asking anyone else to do it for her. If there is an error in the article, please post it here.

As for the Jeff Tietz article, Doc Tropics tried to remove Tietz as a source months ago, but uninvolved editors at the RSN decided that the article was a reliable source. Regarding whether there are ever hundreds of lagoons around these facilities, that is a factual issue that should be easy enough to establish, so I've made the sentence invisible for now. Here is Tietz's article and Smithfield's response. Smithfield doesn't say that there are never hundreds of lagoons, so what is leading us to think that Tietz might be wrong? SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at the academic literature on the lagoons, and I've found one person who seems to be an uninvolved expert. I'm going to email him and ask whether any Smithfield facility ever has 100 lagoons around it, and what to use as a source. Will post here if I get more information.


 * In the meantime, it would help if Kkirkham could post a list of errors (which I've requested several times on this page), assuming there are any, together with sources that we could use to correct those errors. Or, even if she can't recommend sources, at least provide a list of the things she believes are mistakes. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The reason we think Tietz might be wrong? Because Smithfield demonstrated that his article contained over 20 major errors, both factual and technical. With that track record it doesn't seem reasonable to assume that any of his details are correct without verification from an independent RS. Doc  Tropics  22:22, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Smithfield published a response, but we're not in a position to judge whether what they say is correct. We can only go by what each source says, and Smithfield does not say that Tietz was wrong about the number of lagoons. But I have emailed an expert. If I get no response, I'll email another one. It seems to be a straightforward factual issue, so it should be easy to resolve. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


 * SlimVirgin offers: "In the meantime, it would help if Kkirkham could post a list of errors (which I've requested several times on this page), assuming there are any, together with sources that we could use to correct those errors. Or, even if she can't recommend sources, at least provide a list of the things she believes are mistakes." As if Kkirkham weren't extraordinarily prolific about posting what (s)he considers to be errors here! I count 14 posts by Kkirkham among the most recent 50 and, although perhaps not all of them are new alleged errors, I don't see how one can reasonably claim that Kkirkham is not being responsive to requests to discuss alleged errors here before making or asking someone else to make changes.  SteveT (talk)  04:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Kkirkham requests the removal of material that the company doesn't like. That's not the same as listing errors (though she has said for several months that the article contains them). I've requested a list of errors several times, to no avail, so I'll ask again. Something like the following would be helpful. I've filled in the first one from her post above; I'm in the process of checking it and have made the sentence invisible in the meantime:


 * This is wrong. "The area around one slaughterhouse can contain hundreds of these lagoons."
 * This is wrong. Quote sentence.
 * This is wrong. Quote sentence.
 * This needs updating. Quote sentence.


 * With sources if possible (preferably independent ones), because then we can act quickly, but without sources would be helpful too. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought it would be more productive to deal with each "error" one at a time rather than posting an entire list at once, so that's what I've been trying to do by posting concerns as they arise. I think dealing with them in this way ensures that each sentence/fact gets the time it deserves in discussion on the talk page by having its own section and discussion. I don't appreciate the claim that I am asking to remove "information the company doesn't like" instead of factually inaccurate information. I am simply looking to ensure accuracy on this page, and I have tried to be specific in pointing out only factual inaccuracies in my posts. I am seeking to abide by Wiki's policies as best as I am able (keeping in mind that I am still new to the community, so of course I am still learning and will presumably make mistakes along the way). I don't understand the need to have every factual inaccuracy listed at once--why can we not deal with them one at a time as we've been doing? Kkirkham (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Examples
I've just noticed that in October in this edit, The Four Deuces removed material from the HSUS section that was sourced to the Associated Press, and turned the section chronology upside down. So instead of the section being about the HSUS investigation (reported by the Associated Press and New York Times), he made it about the state vet's visit in response to the investigation, and called it "2011 State Veterinarian Visit." This makes no sense at all. The vet visited only because Smithfield requested it, and Smithfield requested it only because of the HSUS investigation.

The Four Deuces also removed – at the request of Smithfield Foods – several reliable sources in this edit on January 7. He removed two articles from The Washington Post,  and one from The Atlantic,  but he left the Smithfield source intact. In fact, he left the whole section relying only on Smithfield Foods. He said later this was an error, but then yesterday, without explanation, Doc Tropics restored the edit. Doc Tropics previously tried to argue that the Jeff Tietz article was not a reliable source. I don't know what's going on here, but it isn't good editing. Wikipedia is about publishing information, not hiding it. Our articles should reflect what secondary sources are saying, per V and NPOV, not what the company is saying about itself. The latter is included, but the article can't focus on it as though it is an extension of Smithfield's website, and we certainly can't remove reliable sources because the company requests it. I really hope that kind of editing will stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * And I hope that your ungrounded and repetitive assertions of bad faith will stop. I see that you have established yourself as the ultimate arbiter of what goes into this article and what does not. You routinely change the article against consensus, but automatically revert the contributions of all other editors. That is unacceptable behavior in a collaborative editing environment. Very specifically, Kkirkham's approach to handling this situation in accordance with our policies has ranged from "good" (good intentions were initially hampered by minor errors) to "exemplary" (abides absolutely by all policies and principles while working to improve article). K has in fact, behaved much better than you have. In my locale your accusations would be referred to as the pot calling the kettle black. Doc  Tropics  19:27, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I've provided diffs for the source material that was removed, and I can provide more, so these are not ungrounded assertions.


 * Since Kkirkham arrived on this talk page in June, I'm the only editor (apart from her) who has added corporate information. I took the lead and infobox from this to this (it contains no criticism, by the way, which per WP:LEAD we ought to rectify soon). I also added a company profile section, including a template containing corporate information and brand names. The only thing the rest of you have done is remove material (from other sections) that the company doesn't like. It's easy to remove things. It's not so easy to build. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Slim, I'm happy to start coming up with new material to build the page--I thought it most productive to first edit what we already have for factual accuracy, and then start building in new material. I'm happy to go about it in a different way though, if all the editors here feel that would be more productive. Kkirkham (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"Housing of Animals" Section Edits
All,

I made a few edits to the Housing paragraph. Most were simply rewording of the original content for clarity/style differences, although I did remove a couple small factoids for accuracy, the most substantial of which is the removal of the quote from the Jeff Tietz article. While the quote was accurate in the sense that Mr. Tietz did indeed write that material in his article, the information is simply inaccurate and his article is filled with factual inaccuracies. I'd be happy to talk more about it if anyone has a concern. Thanks! Kkirkham (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, A13ean for taking the time to read through and think about how to best portray the info in this section. Want to talk through your quibbles with my draft? Happy to work through it together. Kkirkham (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here we seem to go again. There is a lot of debate about the Rolling Stone article in the archive, and Kkirkham has said there will be proof of exactly what the inaccuracies are, yet that proof has yet to appear.  Which goes back to my original statement in the archive: just because someone says that an article is inaccurate doesn't make it so. I have reverted it back to A13ean's first revert, if that makes any sense. Bob98133 (talk) 17:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can clarify just what you're concerned about being removed? The first time I looked at it I thought some stuff was disappearing, but realized it just got moved.  The language in some cases was a bit softened, but nothing that can't be adjusted after the fact.  a13ean (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, A13ean, it's the information from the oft-debated article from Rolling Stone. If you take a look at Archive 1, you'll see that it's been a bone of contention for some time. Yet while a couple of folks have said the article has inaccuracies, there's been no proof of said inaccuracies.  Kkirham has made mostly good faith edits to this article, but he/she has readily admitted he/she works for Smithfield.  So some editors have been particularly attuned to edits that he/she makes that might violate NPOV, especially in "softening" of language.  Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's a start as to some of the inaccuracies portrayed in the Rolling Stone article: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SFD/2124136574x0x630797/a2f61ed7-b259-4df0-a90d-e22a1047a916/Rolling_Stone_121506.pdf. Our farms are strictly regulated and permitted by state and federal laws. If our lagoons had somehow leaked or overflowed, we would have received am official notice of violation from the government. Our farms haven't received a single notice of violation for any reason (including for reasons of paperwork, permits, etc.) in multiple years. Kkirkham (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you please humor me and clarify exactly what language you object to in this particular edit? There's a giant wall of text in the archive on the article, but there's only a few changes made in this particular edit.  User:Kkirkham, if you have any complaints about factual claims made in the article, it would be advisable to do so by arguing with reliable sources, not response statements.   a13ean (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey a13ean. The piece that concerns me most is this sentence: ''"According to Jeff Tietz writing for Rolling Stone magazine, the waste – a mixture of excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths, stillborn pigs, drugs and other chemicals – overflows when it rains and the liners can be punctured by rocks."

''
 * This is simply inaccurate. Our manure management systems are strictly permitted by the government and are permitted as non-discharge facilities. This means they are prohibited from discharging into any waterway and follow certain procedures/requirements to ensure they do not do so. In addition, the permit restricts the type of material that can be disposed of in our system to animal waste only, and specifically excludes the disposal of chemicals or solid wastes in our lagoon systems. The permits are very detailed and specific, and, as an example, the North Carolina permit can be found here: General Permit Requirements. Kkirkham (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting to hear from User:Bob98133 about what specifically he objects to in the diff. a13ean (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh...gotcha! Sorry. I thought you were asking which pieces I didn't like about the current version. Sorry for the unnecessary commentary. Kkirkham (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry, A13ean, didn't know that was meant for me. I have no problem with the way things are worded right now. But to take a phrase like "known as CAFOs" and change it to "sometimes referred to as CAFOs" is, imho, a softening of language.  The meat industry has understandably and effectively fought the use of the words "factory farms," and some seem to want to get rid of the use of "CAFOs" as well.  But that's what the EPA, the CDC and state govts continue to use so I believe that language should stand.  Smithfield doesn't work with Joe Farmer up the road with 2 or 3 pigs.  They use CAFOs, even if some are small and independent. Same goes for adding "some" to the sentence about the facilities softens the language used in the Washington Post article cited. There were also sentences removed from sourced material including Business Week and The Associated Press and, forgive me, but I don't see where they were moved to. And as to the claim that Smithfield lagoons haven't leaked, please see http://www.porknetwork.com/pork-news/smithfield-provides-another-13-million-114063744.html  and the entire section in this very article under Emissions.  Once again, I must maintain that just because there are laws or permits doesn't mean they aren't violated or enforced.  I'm sorry Kkirkham doesn't like the Teitz article, but in the years we've been at this, he/she has not provided any proof that it's inaccurate.  Smithfield's response to the accusations is included in this article, and that's what keeps it in balance. As I said, I have no problem with the current language.  But the edit prior to this smelled slightly whitewashy.  I am very willing to work with anyone on cleaning up what need to be cleaned, but in the past year, all that's been proposed has been lacking in NPOV presentation and adequate references.Bob98133 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! The first time I looked at this I focused on the gestation crates bit, and it appears that I may have missed several things in the rearranging. Sorry about that. I would suggest the following: Sorry for moving slow on this, I should have spent more time looking at the edit right when it happened. a13ean (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Stick with the sometimes referred to as CAFOs bit. It's not a term that's commonly used by laypersons such as myself (and the ref that it's currently sourced to doesn't use the term.)
 * Get rid of "Smithfield attributes the pink color of the waste to the health of the lagoons, writing that the color is "a sign of bacteria doing what it should be doing. It's indicative of lower odor and lower nutrient content" as kinda dumb and sourced only to a response statement.
 * Keep the bulk of the comments from the Teitz article, but axe "a mixture of excrement, urine, blood, afterbirths, stillborn pigs, drugs and other chemicals" as gratuitous. We know what pig waste is. I see zero basis for contesting the reliably sources statement that some lagoons leak.
 * Kill "30-feet-deep open-air pits the size of two football fields, referred to within the industry as" since the size refers to the lagoons at a specific facility, and they don't appear to go by any other name.
 * "The lagoon uses anaerobic digestion to treat the material, and it is then utilized as organic fertilizer on nearby cropland." I don't think anyone disputes this.
 * "When they give birth, they are moved to a farrowing crate for about three weeks, then artificially inseminated and placed back into a gestation crate. The practice has led to criticism from animal welfare groups, supermarket chains and McDonald's." This needs to stay in as its well sourced, and provides context for the phasing out of gestation crates material.
 * It seems like there's actually a more diverse range of sources for overflowing lagoons than just the RS article. In particular we have "Another milestone occurred when Smithfield Foods, Inc., entered into an agreement with the state Attorney General in 2000 after dozens of lagoons ruptured during Hurricane Floyd, resulting in Clean Water Act violations. Smithfield Foods agreed to pay $15 million toward research on ESTs and $50 million toward environmental enhancement." from this article.  There's also a reprinted N&O article.  a13ean (talk) 21:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Right. Some of that is mentioned in the Emissions section, different references, though. Thanks for your suggestions, A13ean. Need a couple of days to review and cogitate, if you don't mind. Bob98133 (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, Bob and A13ean. A few points:


 * (1) Several hundred residents filed a lawsuit recently against Smithfield Food farmers in North Carolina, over the issue of air and ground pollution from these lagoons. That may be why that section of this article has the attention of the company again. There's a video news report about the lawsuits here.
 * (2) Jeff Tietz's article in Rolling Stone has been deemed to be a reliable source by multiple editors, here and on the RSN, every time Smithfield has tried to have its material removed.
 * (3) Smithfield published a point-by-point rebuttal of Tietz's article, but did not mention or contradict his claim that the lagoons overflow when it rains (that I can see).

Regarding A13ean's suggestions: the only two I'd caution against are removing the description of the waste and size of the lagoons. What the waste consists of is part of the controversy and the size of the lagoons is similarly an issue. In addition to the Washington Post's description of them as "open-air pits the size of two football fields," Tietz describes them as "as much as 120,000 square feet ... some of which run thirty feet deep." This is not just about the lagoons next to that one facility in Mexico. We could change that to "up to" 30-ft deep etc, to signal that sometimes they are smaller, if we have a source for that. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Up to 30 feet deep, etc seems the most accurate representation of the sources we have. I still feel that enumerating exactly what is in the waste is gratuitous, but if the general consensus is that it should be kept, then I won't object.  a13ean (talk) 23:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Untitled
This article is really, really out of date. I am familiar with this company and much of the info in this article is years old. I suggest one of the authors/followers update it. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking for information on the John Morrell & Co history BEFORE it was purchaces by Smithfield ... but the page redirects here. Is there another page for it under another name? I'd volunteer to make one, but obviously I have no info to share. LadyBrianna (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Sometimes redirects have more information in the article history, but the John Morrell & Co. history shows it was never an article and was created as a redirect. If you already have sources, you could add them to this talk page and an editor might be able to incorporate them into the article. If there are a few WP:RS references covering John Morrell & Co., a seperate section could be created to cover it in this article, or the content could be broken off into its own article. If you don't already have sources, you might try asking a question at the Reference desk. Dialectric (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Update request
Hello everyone, I'm a representative of Smithfield Foods and would like to request that one of the authors update this article. In particular, there were a series of edits made on March 29th that are unsourced and inaccurate. I am respectful of Wikipedia's guidelines concerning conflict of interest and have made no edits myself but wanted to encourage others to make this article accurate. (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC))


 * Thank you to the users who reverted some of the edits made on March 29th. The areas on governance and some of the financial numbers are still very out of date. Our most recent SEC filing has verified and updated information regarding our financial figures and governance. Here is the link: http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SFD/1972273717x0xS91388-16-64/91388/filing.pdf. If you anyone wants me to call out specifics I would be more than happy to or I understand if you would like to pull the information out yourself. (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC))


 * Updated the financial figures. Altamel (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Altamel. Could anyone take a minute to update our Governance section? Here is the current information: http://www.smithfieldfoods.com/about-smithfield/leadership (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC))


 * ✅ Altamel (talk) 20:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you Altamel. One quick note, since our acquisition by WH Group, we no longer have our own external board of directors. That section can be removed. Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! Bob98133 (talk) 16:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bob98133! Could you also make the changes to grey box on right? (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC))


 * Bob98133! Could you also make the changes to grey box on right? (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC))

Edit requested on October 17, 2016
Hello, my name is Jeremy and I am requesting an edit on behalf of Smithfield Foods. The governance section in the body of the entry was recently updated but the grey box drop down still has outdated information. Can this be updated? (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC))
 * Jeremy, can you indicate what parts of the infobox are outdated? Thanks, Altamel (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of the sections have some out of date information but specifically the Governance section is incorrect. There is no longer a Board of Directors and the Corporate Officers are out of date. (Jeremy Smithfield (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:11, 24 October 2016 (UTC)