Talk:Conagra Brands

Failed GA

This article lacks any references and pictures and therefore does not meet the expectations of a good article. KI 21:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a corporate editor in the house?

Looks like some folks want all mention of ConAgra brands and ConAgra food recalls either deleted or toned down. This is my second encounter with ConAgra stealth edits -- it happened during the ConAgra "Popcorn Worker's Lung" flurry of news stories in September 2007 as well on the page about Bronchiolitis obliterans. A word to the wise is sufficient. I have added this article to my watchlist. cat Catherineyronwode 23:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying someone here is astroturfing for ConAgra? If so, be specific and transparent about whose edits you have an issue with. Your statement is questioning people's impartiality and motivations, so it's only fair you say who it's directed towards.--Dali-Llama 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also unsure as to where your accusations are directed. If there are notable issues with media coverage pertaining to CA's corporate activities, by all means source and include them. The list of brands is hosted on a separate article - there is no need to begin creating a second list which a) duplicates material held on the separate list, b) adds bulletpointed items to an article which should be written in prose, and c) invites editors to make subjective judgements about what qualifies as "major". The existence of several redlinks in the duplicated section adequately underlines this point. Rest assured my administrative eye on this article is entirely impartial - if you have POV concerns about the article, I'll be happy to take a look at them but please don't make accusations of "stealth editing" without specific evidence. Deiz talk 01:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I will be very specific. Back in September 2007 an editor was messing around the Bronchiolitis obliterans pages, (falsely) claiming that B.O. was not the same as Popcorn Worker's Lung -- right while the name ConAgra was in the news, due to diacetyl fumes being a cause of B.O., and some of those fumes being unleashed at ConAgra food plants. A few weeks later i ran into an editor with the actual user name ConAgra (account since deleted) who had similar intentions, namely, clearing away any bad press surrounding ConAgra. You can check out the trail of events at the B.O. history and B.O. talk page and even on my talk page.

Then i came here to find that someone had made a deletion of material about the ConAgra recall of pot pies due to Salmonella poisoning. They claimed that it was "not a recall" (see the edit history) -- but it was a recall, so i rewrote the article again.

Now i find that someone has purged two different edits (one by someone else, one by me) that had consisted of material about ConAgra food recalls in the Great Value brand. The first edit which was purged was about the Great Value / ConAgra peanut butter recall of April, 2007. The one just deleted (which i wrote) concerned the Great Value / ConAgra turkey and chicken pot pie recall of October 2007. ConAgra made both the peanut butter and the pot pies for Wal-Mart. Both edits were deleted from the only page at WP on the Great Value brand (Wal-Mart house brand), which is an obscure "List of Wal-Mart brands" page.

I edit in all kinds of fields -- occultism, music, history, religion, medicine, you name it -- and it seems like i am running into some very odd deletions when the name "ConAgra" comes up. I am not accusing anyone -- just wondering what's going on. The third incident may be more Wal-Mart related than ConAgra related, but the point of this notice is that i am now aware that news stories that are unfavurable to ConAgra are a bit of a pain to edit, due to "helping hands syndrome."

As for names -- user names are nothing. It's the pattern of editing that is of greater interest to me.

catherine yronwode, my real name and my real user name. Catherineyronwode 02:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, as far as Wikipedia goes, usernames do matter. Real names don't. We don't defer to someone's authority, where they work, what their PhD is in or how many years of schooling they've had on the subject. All we have to prove we're serious editors is our edit histories, talk pages, occasional RfAs and edit counts. We use them to distinguish the astroturfers from the genuine editor. And while you still haven't named me, I think it's clear you're referring to me when you talk about deletion of material regarding whether or not the recall was a recall.

For the record: the pot pie incident began as a consumer advisory on Tuesday, progressed into ConAgra issuing a retailer-voluntary recall (ConAgra asked retailers not to sell them) on Thursday morning, then late Thursday night a manufacturer-voluntary recall (ConAgra told retailers to stop selling). I edited exclusively off of the referenced AP article to reflect this progression, and to reflect the AP story stated the decision to issue the advisory (and not recall) was a joint decision by the USDA and ConAgra. At the time of my edit the manufacturer-recall had not been issued yet. This is what the article, date-stamped Thursday morning, said: "Even though the pot pies have not (my emphasis) been recalled, Childs said ConAgra asked stores to pull all the pies with the identifying "P-9" code on them from store shelves and not sell them."

So there are two issues at hand: One is you questioning my facts, which is perfectly legitimate. To be fair, by the time you checked the text the recall had been issued. This AP story explains the progression I've mentioned. So my edits were factually correct for the facts given at the time. What I did not appreciate was the second issue where you painted my edits as being part of "something fishy", which in the end is questioning my integrity as an editor. In the end, no harm, no foul. I would only advise you that the next time, be very specific--cite names and diffs: otherwise you're painting everyone with the same brush stroke. Accusing someone of astroturfing is serious, and a thin accusation like that is very easily interpreted as a personal attack without underlying evidence.--Dali-Llama 04:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if i ruffled your feathers. It was the fact that there was an editor actually calling himself ConAgra that had caught my eye. I was not making any accusations against you, merely noting for my own future reference the strange edits i had run into when working on ConAgra-related items. I understand and accept your explanation of the timeline of the edits you made here and i apologize for antagonizing you, which was not my intention. cat Catherineyronwode 11:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC

ConAgra slaugherhouse operations

ConAgra features extremely poorly in Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation, so I have incorporated some relevant information from this best-selling book that I think the general public should know about. Ivankinsman (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between mentioning Schlosser discusses ConAgra and including a potpourri of miscellaneous facts. You're inserting a "corporate history" paragraph which is not located in the right place. I've removed it until it can be included in the corporate history. At the same time, NPOV is an issue when this is an anecdotal account of a writer--at the same time these conditions may not be the same for all ConAgra plants, they may also be the same for all meat-packing plants in the US (IE: singling out ConAgra one way or another). I've added disclosure to mitigate that, but I still think it would deserve further scrutiny from other editors (especially since Schlosser's book is a purpose-driven account, and not an academic source--I'm not even sure it meets WP:RS). In the meantime, I think disclosure as Schlosser's own account (and not an argument of how this is systemic) is sufficient for the time being.--Dali-Llama (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Chun King chow mein

A couple generations ago, when no one i'd ever met knew what a wok is, but chow mein and chop suey from Chinese-American-operated restaurants were available in many cities, this company was apparently the parent of Chun King-brand shelf-stable pseudo-Chinese food. IIRC, one product was a pair of cans of the same diameter; the consumer would break whatever mechanism made them stay stacked one on top of the other, open both cans, heat the wet contents of one and serve it on top of the deep-fried "chow mein noodles" in the other can.
Stan Freberg advertised for them and WP notes the

ABC special: Stan Freberg Presents: The Chun King Chow Mein Hour: Salute to the Chinese New Year (February 1962)

One of his ads was set in an elevator. The camera is looking over heads as the doors open, and Freburg himself gets in. He starts pitching the Chun King product as a break from more white-bread-Euro-American foods, probably picking especially on spaghetti, IIRC. The elevator operator keeps asking him to face the front of the car. None of the passengers say anything. Finally the doors open, and the other camera is looking past his back into the car. All the passengers have Chinese features.
Chun King (Chung King was the WWII-era Western name for Chongqing, the KMT's wartime de-facto capital) was an institution, whose memory has some Web presence but no effective WP one. That's a shame.
--Jerzy•t 04:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute?

There is a neutrality-dispute tag at the top of he article, but I don't see any discussion here about the neutrality of the article. I see some mention of an "editing pattern", but that's about it. Can anyone shed light on the controversy? Thanks! Oliepedia (talk) 15:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The neutrality-dispute tag should be moved to the section or sections in question, and not be posted over the entire article. Deanlaw (talk) 22:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that the neutrality dispute may additionally be a result of the article's composition. Roughly three-quarters of the article address product recalls and controversy (see WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject."). For such a massive food producer, the article sans controversy sections is little more than a stub. I would encourage the expansion of the non-alarmist sections of the article. 128.61.56.41 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Since a lot of the controversies are product-specific, why not either just merge the controversies with whatever article covers the product and perhaps just leave a quick mention with a link? It seems like any time I view a talk page for a disputed article, there's no happy medium. So many of the articles here seem so biased, too; I do not have the time to research so much (M.S. degree programs and all), but I can tell you that this particular article could be expanded to OBJECTIVELY discuss their veterans' program or some more of the philanthropic programs they participate in. 67.54.234.200 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)