Talk:Chiquita Brands International

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] True or False?

An unregistered user, 160.39.130.224, added a sentence to the second graf saying the allegation were "prove(n) entirely false." That's not true. The Enquirer withdrew the series under legal pressure because their reporters hacked into the company voice-mail system. See the NY Times articles cited for how the truth of the articles was never addressed. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also, maybe the article should mention the role Chiquita has in influencing the WTO trade disputes between the US and the EU in regards to treatment of ACP countries? Harkening back to its old UFC days....

"allowing cocaine to be brought to America on its ships" America - USA?

  • False - there was an issue to Europe, but it is long gone. Cliffb 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


why no link to the Cincinnati story? it was easily found on google: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/chiquita/ and what about the results? any official enquiry or indictments? this article needs filling out. the allegations would be part of the zeitgeist, but somehow banana polictics doesn't make front page, unlike oil or GM. TresRoque 08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there was never an official inquiry or indictment. The stories were retracted, and that was the end of it —Cliffb 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

I expected to read much more about controversy. The author should provide full information about the legal (voice mail) pressure to rectify the story. Right now it seems Chiquita is the sweetest company in the world that was bashed by some evil journalists. And why does it say 1988? The article says 1998: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/chiquita/chiquita01.htm


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070314/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorism_bananas

Just insert the banner that deals with current events. I added that information after hearing the story on the news, and spent very little time and effort in doing so. Feel free to correct any errors I may have made. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 22:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protection money

I took out the words "right-wing". Payments were make to three groups, AUC, which is right-wing, FARC, which is left-wing, and ELN, which is also left wing..12.10.223.247 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title of Section Three

Section three has gone through four different titles. In order they are:

  1. Terrorist Ties (added by User:Doctor_Lyles_Carlton_III)
  2. Protection Payments to Terrorists (changed by User:Cliffb)
  3. Paramilitary funding controversy (changed by User:Haakon)
  4. Protection Payments to Paramilitary Groups (changed by User:Cliffb)

In the interests of full disclosure, I used to work for Chiquita, and have been aware of this situation via news media reports/press releases for some time.

Deconstructing the titles:

  1. Terrorist Ties - I think this is inaccurate, yes the company paid groups considered by the US government to be terrorists, but its not as if they were doing this freely and without a very pressing reason.
  2. Protection Payments to Terrorists - I changed this, so I think it was accurate, however I think Haakon's next nPOV edit was about the word terrorists. Am I correct Haakon?
  3. Paramilitary funding controversy - again I think this suffers from inaccuracies, the payments were made for a pressing reason.
  4. Protection Payments to Paramilitary Groups, incorporates titles 2 and 3 together.

Have we reached NPOV here? I believe we have, but I given the situation I think its important that this be handled deliberately and with consensus. —Cliffb 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChiquita_Brands_International_ca5b.html"