Talk:Smithfield Foods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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 Wikipedia: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)
