Talk:Tyson Foods
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Citations
Can someone go through this article and cite some more of the facts? I've done a couple, but this article really deserves a nice clean-up. -- Zanimum 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC) --
I work for the company, so might not be considered a "neutral" source. So I'll not edit. However, this statement is innacurate: "Many of their employees are at their 84 company-owned chicken grower operations." Tyson owns less than one percent of the operations that grow chickens for its production. Most are independent farmers who grow under contract for the company. As such, these farmers are not employees. Of the 107,000 company employees, fewer than 100 work on company-owned growing operations. Most of the employees work at the company's manufacturing operations.
-
- It looks like everything about Tysons, right up the the renewable energy section, has to be taken on faith - no references whatsoever. It sounds like it could be true, but some references are needed. Also there are a ton of red links in this article. I'll go through it when I have the time, but whoever posted this material should really document it or it reads like a prospectus for investors! I seem to recall a lot of references to Tysons regarding hiring of illegal immigrants, wage disputes, food recalls and other things that are completely missing. Zanimu, if you've got documentation for whatever, please add it - the facts don't change just cause you work there! Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] NPOV in the Christian activism section
Although I do not dispute the fact that Tyson tends to encourage Christian values within its Corporate culture, I believe that the exact phrasing and tone of this section presents an extremely biased point of view. I'm not entirely sure if it is noteworthy to have this section included in the article at all; however, it is extremely important that whatever content is included should be written neutrally and factually. If it is found that the section cannot be written in a neutral voice showing little or no bias other than factual evidence, then that should be an indicator that the section does not belong here. --Antcjone 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like bald statement of fact to me so what point of view do you think is being pushed? I can't even tell if you think it is biased for or against. --Spondoolicks 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the wording used in that section gave me a very negative impression, as if it had been written by someone that was spiteful or resentful of what was going on, instead of reporting the facts neutrally. However, that is just my personal impression, and may not be a consensus, which is why I am discussing it before any actual editing goes on. Also, just for the record, the quote used in that section is not being used in context. It is being reported that Tyson made that statement, when it was actually an analyst that wrote it about all food companies needing to sell an ideology. Follow reference 7 for that section and read the article it links to; you will find the quote at the bottom. --Antcjone 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, that last statement reads as an official Tyson quote but is actually some journalist's interpretation of a marketing strategy devised by a consultant (Faith Popcorn - surely that can't be a real name) for the company - i.e. way too indirect a source. I've removed that sentence as it pretty much counts as original research. Regarding bias, I still don't see it. Perhaps you could try formulating an alternative way of stating the facts in this section which you would feel more comfortable with so I could see what you mean. --Spondoolicks 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Some of the wording used in that section gave me a very negative impression, as if it had been written by someone that was spiteful or resentful of what was going on, instead of reporting the facts neutrally. However, that is just my personal impression, and may not be a consensus, which is why I am discussing it before any actual editing goes on. Also, just for the record, the quote used in that section is not being used in context. It is being reported that Tyson made that statement, when it was actually an analyst that wrote it about all food companies needing to sell an ideology. Follow reference 7 for that section and read the article it links to; you will find the quote at the bottom. --Antcjone 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- As it reads now I find the the presentation to be quite NPOV, actually. There's no implication of coersion by the company that I can see and no presence of any 'weasel words', either and it's very well sourced. An example of cut and dry editing, if you ask me. :-) CanadianMist 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps with the quote removed it now reads a bit more neutral to me as well. I think it was just how the quote was written as compared to what I know aobut the company that hit me the wrong way. I am removing the POV tag.--Antcjone 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- As it reads now I find the the presentation to be quite NPOV, actually. There's no implication of coersion by the company that I can see and no presence of any 'weasel words', either and it's very well sourced. An example of cut and dry editing, if you ask me. :-) CanadianMist 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New Link Added to the PETA Section
Although it is not a bad idea to have a link to YouTube for the PETA video, it needs to be edited to be listed as a correct reference, instead of being listed directly in the article. I do not know how to do this, which is why I am posting aobut it here. Thank you to whomever it was that added the information. It jsut needs to be formatted correctly. --Antcjone 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- I turned the You Tube video into a reference. I think that is what you mean, but not totally sure. I also added an environmental record section and tried to do some clean up on all of the citations. --Mackabean 01:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TysonLogo.png
Image:TysonLogo.png 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 Wikipedia: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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, 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) 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] History section
It's a little bizarre that the history begins with Tyson selling chicken out of state. Was he born with these chickens? Did he already have a chicken farm? Was he a chicken middleman, selling someone else's chicken out of state? This history begins in the middle, reads a bit like an autobiography, and has a bit too much POV language. For example, "He realized that he could make more money..." supposes that he knew this in advance. He may have thought it, but it was not realized until he tried it. "he made another leap" - was he a leaper or a chicken salesman? Bsellers - can you go over this so it's more like history and less like something you'd find in a Tyson's ad. I appreciate that you found this info, and a history section makes sense, but it should be more "encyclopedic". thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)