Talk:Wegmans Food Markets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Companies Portal
This article is within the scope of Companies WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of companies. If you would like to participate please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating assessment scale.
This article is part of the New York State WikiProject, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to the U.S. state of New York. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Bulletin: The next New York City meetup is Sunday June 1st.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] UEP discussion

Feb 10, I removed the section about the FCC dispute with the United Egg Producers because I thought it was written in such a way as to imply the Better Business Bureau and the FCC had a dispute with Wegmans. From my reading it appears that Wegmans was using an industry-approved logo. The BBB and FCC had a dispute with the egg industry people, arguing that the logo was misleading, and resulting in the logo being discontinued. Wegmans then promptly removed the logo. Wegmans was not involved in the dispute, except as one of many hundreds of egg producers across the country. Wegmans was not targeted by the FCC or BBB over the logo. Therefore in my opinion linking Wegmans to the dispute creates a false impression of wrongdoing.

You're correct that the BBB ruling and FTC action concerned the entire UEP, and not just Wegmans. However, the subject of the criticism section was (originally) how Wegmans in particular has been the subject of intense criticism over its use of the logo by both national groups like the Humane Society of the U.S., and local groups in Rochester, Syracuse, and Baltimore. The fact that the BBB and FTC intervened on the side of the critics is worth citing because it lends credence to their claims.
Multiple edits may have shifted the focus to the UEP issue, however, and away from the ongoing dispute with Wegmans. I'd welcome a re-write, if you're interested. Hoss Firooznia 13:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, I'm a newbie and this is just my opinion. I didn't even really delete the text, just commented it out, and I'm not going to get involved in a revert war after things have obviously calmed down a bit. I just honestly think the part about the egg logo creates a misleading impression. Thatcher131 20:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct that the dispute with the UEP logo went beyond just Wegmans. However, Wegmans' decision to use the logo was voluntary, and their refusal to remove it (until the logo was discontinued and they had no other choice) makes its mention relevant, I think. Add to that the criticism specifically leveled at Wegmans' use of the logo by a number of activist groups.
Instead of removing the text (or commenting it out), perhaps you could improve upon it by adding more information?
Hoss Firooznia 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. If I rewrote the section, I would say the following
Wegmans was also criticized for using an "Animal Care Certified" seal on their packaging. Wegmans responded that their facility met the standards of the United Egg Producers industry group, which created the logo. Animal rights groups had argued that UEP's animal care standards were so lax that the logo was misleading, and in late 2005, under pressure from the FTC, UEP withdrew the seal. Wegmans promptly removed the logo from their packaging.
The problem here is that it is trying to make Wegmans look bad for using the seal, when they were a third party in the dispute. Animal rights and vegetarian groups have also targeted the slogan "Milk, it does a body good." Would it be fair to specifically target a certain dairy for using the slogan? To put it another way, the position that Wegmans should have known that the UEP's standards were meaningless and should have voluntarily discontinued the seal is a perfectly defensible POV (and it's one I could probably agree with). However it is a POV and it looks to me like leaving the logo dispute in the Wegmans article is a way of referencing that POV without actually saying it. I could live my second rewrite above, though, if others prefer it too. Thatcher131 13:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
I like the rewrite. As to the milk analogy, I'd say that a dairy using an industry-wide slogan would indeed be fair game for criticism if it had a choice in the matter. In this case, Wegmans' choice to use the ACC logo means they aren't simply a third party in the dispute.
Aside from the question of liability, however, Wegmans has specifically come under fire in the media for its choice of the ACC logo. That's not POV. For example, this blurb about Wegmans dropping the logo just appeared in the Rochester papers today: "Wegmans eggs drop 'Animal Care Certified' label"
Hoss Firooznia 18:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
But the newspaper article is the result of more pressure from Compassionate Consumers, which I see is also planning to take some chickens to Wegmans corporate headquarters in March and have a protest. By your logic we should also include in Wikipedia the January 29 protest at Wegmans East Ave store because it made the TV news. I see from the CC website that there is a highly active and coordinated schedule of protests, several of which have received media coverage. Having article content driven by how often people with an agenda can get in the news is not exactly a neutral approach. Until and unless somebody like the USDA or law enforcement decides to take on Wegmans' methods, the currently posted version of the article is as far as I am willing to go. Let me say I certainly respect your passion on this issue but agenda-driven reporting just doesn't create fair and neutral content. Thatcher131 19:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
You're right that whether a story makes the news isn't sufficient basis for inclusion in the article. But that's not at issue here. The point is that Wegmans' choice of the ACC logo is, and has been, at the very center of the animal cruelty allegations made against the company. In a section of the article labeled "criticism", does it really make sense to remove an explanation of what that criticism is all about?
Hoss Firooznia 07:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
We have to agree to disagree on this. You took the view above in my hypothetical, that a private diary which chooses to use an industry-wide logo is subject to individual criticism, and I definitely disagree. If Wegmans used the certified label but none of the other grocers in the area did, or the other grocers dropped it when CC complained, that might be interesting. What about Tops and Big M and SuperWalmart and Target? Are their henhouses up to CC's standards or does CC just go after Wegmans because they are locally headquartered? If CC targeted all the grocers in Rochester and only Wegmans acted in a particular way, that might also make it fair to add since the implied suggestion creating by naming just one firm would be backed up by facts. Thatcher131 07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thatcher, I fully agree with you that Wegmans isn't unique insofar as its grocery is concerned; other grocers use(d) the same logo, so you're right: they are just as deserving of criticism as Wegmans on that count. However, Wegmans' grocery operation isn't at issue. Neither Tops nor Big M nor Walmart nor Target, to my knowledge, own and operate egg farms in New York State. Wegmans, by contrast, owns and operates the largest egg farm in New York State. That's why the criticism of their use of the ACC logo is relevant. Wegmans has the ability to determine how their eggs are labeled. Tops, Big M, Walmart and Target do not. Hoss Firooznia 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree that the use of the UEP seal was central to the dispute. Do you suggest that if Wegmans had removed the seal, CC would have dropped its objection to battery cages and dropped the documentary? As far as the edit goes, we have one for removing the statement, one against, and one abstention (Anthony). I'd like to leave it as is unless more comments are added. Thatcher131 07:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not suggesting that CC's objection to battery cages hinges on Wegmans' use of the ACC logo. However, the logo is indeed central to the criticism that has been leveled against Wegmans, since the claim implied by the logo (humane treatment) is clearly inconsistent (according to the activists) with the practices allegedly documented on Wegmans' farm. This link between the logo and the criticism has been present from the start, and continues to this day, as mentioned in the recent article cited. So perhaps you can understand why it seems so strange to me that you'd want to remove an explanation of the logo from a section devoted to the criticism surrounding it.Hoss Firooznia 17:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand from the point of view of the CC, the ACC seal was a little extra slap in the face by Wegmans. Since Wegmans used the seal when it was permissable and stopped when it was not, mentioning the seal issue would imply that Wegmans had committed a wrong by using it, and that is only your opinion. Thatcher131 19:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
My opinion of Wegmans' conduct is really irrelevant here. What is relevant is the historical record. Wegmans chose to advertise their eggs as "animal care certified." CC contacted Wegmans to verify this claim; Wegmans balked; CC went to the farm and made a film. None of these facts are in dispute. By mentioning ACC, we're not endorsing any particular POV; we're merely providing necessary context so that readers can understand what the criticism in the "Criticism" section is all about. Hoss Firooznia 19:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • My understanding is Wegmans said the care met UEP standards for use of the logo. Hence the dispute was between CC and UEP over whether the logo was misleading. Thatcher131 20:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
No, the dispute was between Wegmans and CC (among many other groups) over whether Wegmans treats its animals humanely. Since the very beginning the criticism focused on Wegmans' use of the ACC logo, since (according to the activists) the logo implies humane care. This is not POV, it's a matter of historical record. If you examine the early press coverage (and responses from Wegmans) you'll find this is true. Hoss Firooznia 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your statement neatly conflates two disputes into one, a fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge. As you agree, CC would have protested the housing conditions even if the egg packaging had been silent on the issue. Making special mention of the packaging issue implies Wegmans did something wrong. You and CC believe that, but no one else does, since not only has there been no state or federal charges regarding the egg farm, there have been no state or federal charges regarding the packaging. So creating the implication here would be wrong. Thatcher131 21:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Responding to your various points:
  • I do not agree that CC would have protested the housing conditions even if the egg packaging had been silent on the issue. That's a conterfactual that neither of us can prove or disprove.
  • Making special mention of the packaging issue does not imply that Wegmans did something wrong. The packaging issue is necessary background context for understanding the dispute between CC and Wegmans. This is not POV; it's historical record, and I've documented that for you.
  • The fact that there have been no state or federal charges does not mean that Wegmans has done nothing wrong. This error confuses ethical wrongs (which CC is alleging) with legal wrongs (which CC is not alleging).
  • You seem to be conflating the question of whether Wegmans is guilty of wrongdoing with the question of whether to mention of the ACC logo. I'm not suggesting that the article should imply any wrongdoing on Wegmans' part. If you want to change the wording--as you did earlier, for example--that's fine. Hoss Firooznia 23:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Hoss. Do us all a favor and beyond the entire going away until you can provide something of quality as opposed to a highly biased distaste for Wegmans - You can also go away until you act like a civil person.
Beyond my large distaste for you - From what I can tell no one agrees with any of you... shall we say... controversial... views. There was of course that one person who was attempting to bring your bicking to a civil end, but don't confuse that for agreement. Take it for exactly what it was - A civil person trying to keep a article civil.


Thatcher you have my support.--Anthony 21:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hoss - You are very good at one thing, and one thing alone, and it's not providing the truth. Until you can provide to this article with more then tons of POV criticism, with a small amount of any facts you need to stay as far away from this article as possible. The truth can always be manipulated to fit any person's agenda. Unfourtantly you are quite qualified at this less then honest practice. This is one of the many reasons why so many people will not allow their students to use Wikipedia as a resource.--Anthony 15:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anthony, do you really need to be warned again? I'll remind you that I've added quite a bit to this article, whereas you have a history of deleting any content you dislike -- including, ironically, the edits made by a third-party mediator who you yourself requested. If you have a constructive suggestion for improving the article, please make it. But stop the gratuitous personal attacks. Hoss Firooznia 07:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Hoss, 2 points only in response. First, of the 12 outside links, 9 of them are egg protest related (including the Rochester wiki which discusses it). That's plenty of context already. Thatcher131 03:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, if you want to remove some of the redundant links, I'm all for it. But please don't delete crucial parts of the article. After all, if links were sufficient, we wouldn't need an article in the first place. Hoss Firooznia 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Second, if it is true that CC is alleging only ethical wrongs, then you have just about talked yourself right out of including any mention of the egg issue at all. If the vegans protested meat and dairy and the United Farm Workers protested at harvest time and some feminists protested the SI Swimsuit issue, does that all go into the company's encyclopedia article, just because they have different views of ethics? Thatcher131 03:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. At least, that's what NPOV seems to say:
It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
In fact, if you look at the SI Swimsuit article, you'll find that the controversy over objectification of women is indeed included:
The Swimsuit Issue often generates controversy over suggestions that the pictures are salacious, even pornographic; that they objectify women and give them an impossible standard of beauty; and that they have nothing to do with sports, particularly when many of the "swimsuits" appear not to be practical for actual swimming.
Have you been paying no attention? The fact that this entire thing should have it's own page was brought up a long time ago. I can't say I'm suprised you missed it though.--Anthony 16:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
You might argue that this criticism is in a page devoted to the Swimsuit issue, and not a page devoted to Sports Illustrated. If you feel the criticism needs to be separated from the rest of the information about the company, then perhaps we should create a separate "Wegmans criticism" page? Hoss Firooznia 09:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
No, what I meant was, if the vegans and the UFW and the feminists all showed up at Wegmans to protest their particular issues (knowing that since Wegmans is so big in Rochester it would probably make the news), that does not mean the protests should be included in Wegmans' article. Thatcher131 12:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. You're right, of course: those criticisms probably wouldn't belong in the Wegmans article since it's unlikely Wegmans would be singled out over something as tangential to their internal operations as the SI Swimsuit issue. The CC criticism of Wegmans' egg production practices is quite relevant, however, since Wegmans is in fact an egg producer -- one that claims to be treating its animals humanely, no less. That's the crucial difference. To make the analogy equivalent, we'd have to ask if criticism of the SI swimsuit issue belongs in an article devoted to the producer of that product. The answer would seem to be "yes", since that's precisely what the authors of the SI swimsuit article have done. Hoss Firooznia 08:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Never mind the fact the chickens ARE treated humanely. We have been through this far too many times. One groups belief the they are not does not make this fact or encyclopedic. People don't like the cages. Fine. But unless you can find any efforts (let alone laws) from the FDA (or any other such group that has the ability to make laws in the US this remains humane (in the US anyways).--Anthony 15:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Again, there's a difference between law and ethics, and it's a mistake to assume that something is ethical just because it is legal. There are many examples of once-legal practices which we now consider to be inhumane or immoral. Hoss Firooznia 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I can assure you the moment that any group with the legal rights to say these cages are wrong (or even suggest such) Wegmans would remove them. However a group of extremist does not make the POV fact - But we have also already been through that too.--Anthony 15:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll agree with you, Anthony, that an encylopedia article should not endorse a particular POV. But that's not an issue here. We're not endorsing POV; we're simply reporting POV. Hoss Firooznia 16:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Part of the question is which points of view deserve to get mentioned. One could argue that with thousands of Wegmans customers against a dozen or so protestors, the protestors POV is too minor to be worth including. I would agree, if not for the media coverage raising the notability of the issue. Thatcher131 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I am also concerned about Compassionate Consumers in general. Why are they targeting Wegmans? I was in the Henrietta Sam's Club today and they are still selling eggs with the old "Animal Care Certified" label. Yet there are no protestors outside Sam's with hens in cages, no DVDs of Sam's egg farms, etc. Thatcher131 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I am now 49.9% convinced the egg business doesn't belong in there at all, other than out of respect for the previous edit process. Thatcher131 03:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Egg revision

I am considering a revision to the egg section. It is in draft form on my Talk page. I do think that the egg issue is more relevant to Wegmans because they own the farm but I remain concerned about blaming them specifically for the Animal Care Certified label. By rewriting the opening paragraph, we get that in as the issue that sparked it all without having to get into a separate discussion of exactly what the label means. I left in the quote from the newspaper becuase it did come from the newspaper article. On the defense side, I think it is fair to point out that Wegmans says it believes that not all the footage is from their farm. I'm a little puzzled by that, although it could be that some close-ups don't provide enough context to show where they were filmed, and Wegmans could be honestly doubtful. In any case, I say "Wegmans says they believe' which is true from the press release. I considered also adding Wegman's statement that they will consult with Dr. Joy Mench, who was cited favorably in the Humane Society's letter to Wegmans. However WP is not a crystal ball and neither am I so in all fairness I have no idea if they followed through on it.

Regarding the UEP I included it as a separate paragraph, noting that the dispute arose separately from Compassionate Consumer's complaint against Wegmans, although they are related. In examining the source and checking FTC's web site, I find no evidence that the FTC ever issued a ruling; rather, once the case went to the FCC, the UEP changed the logo, and in a letter informing the BBB that the case was being dropped (due to the voluntary change) the Dept director of the FTC expressed support for the BBB's position in the case. I tend to think I should post the paragraph as it is more in keeping with the previous edits, however if another editor came along and suggested removing it I would not object. Thatcher131 20:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Links I trimmed the links. Based on the fact that Wegmans no longer uses the UEP label, we don't need the UEP link, which was a redirect to their new label anyway. UR-Veg's analysis was highly biased, and we don't need a link to CC and the video since the video is porminently adverted on CC's main page. Thatcher131 20:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • /Archive 1 contains a discussion as to whether or not the events in the Criticism sections are important enough to mention, whether the article constitutes propaganda, and a discussion of editing etiquette.

[edit] NPOV Dispute

I've added the POV tag due to the revert war going on between Anthony and Hoss Firooznia. Both of you, please note that you're breaking the three-revert rule and take a moment to read Wikipedia's advice on resolving disputes. will.jennings 01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In my last edit, I've attempted to consolidate the contributions of Anthony and Hoss Firooznia. I've tried to add sources where they were missing and keep the language more neutral.
There is definitely still room for improvement -- for one thing, I think some of the "External Links" should be in a "References" section, and the article could flow more clearly and be more clearly sourced. The relationship between UEP and Wegmans could also stand to be clarified.
Does this seem NPOV to you? If not, please help me out by pointing out specifically where I've failed when making changes. Thanks. will.jennings 03:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your thoughtful rewrite, Will. I'd like to suggest some minor changes, but it seems that Anthony has deleted your work completely, making those comments moot. Can something be done to prevent this? Hoss Firooznia 15:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm working through an improved rewrite at the moment, and I'll be happy for your (that's all-inclusive-you) improvements after I post it. Anthony, I'd particularly appreciate your constructive criticism, and I trust that you'll talk through your edits instead of doing a wholesale revert.
A summary of the changes I've made in this edit:
Restored egg farm fact in "Company facts" section: it's germane and verifiable.
Added sources for several "Company facts".
Removed "Company fact" "Wegmans prides itself on customer service and satisfaction": this is not a verifiable statement, and is marketing language. I could change it to "Wegmans advertises that it prides itself on customer service and satisfaction", but that isn't notable for a retail establishment.
Changed section title on controversy from "Animal Rights Criticism" to "Criticisms", to better match other Wikipedia pages on companies.
Summarized criticisms before diving into details, to try to make the section clearer.
Attempted to sidestep "not all footage was from the Wegmans farm" argument by rephrasing to say that the documentary includes footage from the Wegmans farm, which is not disputed, as far as I can tell.
I could not find a source for the "Wegmans has until March 2006 to comply" factoid -- any help?
Tried to streamline criticism section -- let me know if I've cut any critical details.
Added References section.
will.jennings 23:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again, Will. Your latest rewrite is far more succinct and well written than I'd been able to manage, and it retains the important facts. It also addresses the few modifications I was going to suggest.
Re: the March 2006 figure, here's a reference: [1] However, I've just checked with Wegmans today, and it seems they have finally removed the logo from their packaging. So this detail is moot, and I'll remove it if no one has objections.
Hoss Firooznia 02:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


Awesome -- I'm glad we could come to common ground. I'm pretty happy with the neutrality we've achieved; is there any objection to the removal of the NPOV disclaimer? will.jennings 05:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not very impressed by the "documentary". I won't make a big deal out of it at this point, but if the link directly to the video stays I really would prefer the NPOV notice staying up. Like I said I won't make a big deal out of it at this point (or rather any), but I am strongly against the removal of the notice.
In the end I'll support what ever the majority wants to do.--Anthony 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, so far Anthony has disputed neither the facts as presented, nor the legitimacy of the sources cited. Unless he does, I don't see a reason to retain the NPOV disclaimer. Hoss Firooznia 14:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The video isn't from Wegmans. I think that disputes not only the legitimacy, but also as a side effect every "fact" in the entire video.--Anthony 15:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What? The article clearly identifies the source of the video as Compassionate Consumers. That's a fact even Wegmans doesn't dispute. While you may not agree with claims made in the documentary, that's no basis for an NPOV dispute over this article, since the article does not present those claims as facts. Hoss Firooznia 18:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no talking to people like you. You think your right - Can't be wrong. Can't make complete lies. As long of course as you slap on the word "documentary". Forget the fact non of the footage is even from Wegmans egg farm. Sure the group says it is, but no one in their right mind believes them (if anyone did the charges pressed against Wegmans would have worked). The groups views are not neutral. They are not presented in a neutral fashion. They accuse accuse, and accuse some more with no facts what so ever. Sure they have the video, but as has been stated over and over and over the thing is not legit.

With your bogus logic on this I could go to the Wikipedia entry for England and claim their a communist nation - Just because it's my POV. We all know it's not true, but hey... It's my POV (not really but you get the idea)... So what? Better yet I could claim their planning to take over the World. That sounds even better. And with your logic you couldn't do a single thing about it, because there is no way what-so-ever you could prove it's untrue.

Lets take a step back into reality - Either you can keep the links to the groups bogus video, or we can keep the NPOV dispute tag. It's that simple.

If anything I'm the one letting you stretch the limits. take it or leave it.

And yes that's a ultimatum. I'm not going to stretch for a chaotic group anymore.--Anthony 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, you've been warned about personal attacks before. I've been reasonable with you. If you can't be reasonable and stick to the issues, you can at least try to be civil. Your continued attempts at character assassination are both juvenile and obnoxious, and I will continue to ignore them. As to your arguments:
First, I'm afraid you're mistaken about the documentary footage:
"Forget the fact non of the footage is even from Wegmans egg farm. Sure the group says it is, but no one in their right mind believes them"
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Even Wegmans, your employer, believes that some of the footage is from their farm. And of course, Wegmans is using that very same footage to support their case against the filmmakers who trespassed on the farm.
Second, there is clearly a dispute going on between Wegmans and consumers who think that Wegmans is abusing animals. This is not just the opinion of a few filmmakers. (For example, see the Wegmans battery cage petition at UR. Well over 1,000 people have written to ask Wegmans to clean up their farm.)
The criterion for inclusion of this dispute isn't my "bogus logic," it's a Wikipedia guideline. As Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute says,
Neutrality here at Wikipedia is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced we are that our facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties really do disagree with us, no matter how wrong we think they are, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties.
So the dispute does indeed belong here, as do the relevant points of view and their references. If you feel that Wegmans' side of the dispute is not being fairly addressed, then please suggest additions. Otherwise, the NPOV dispute warning should go.
Hoss Firooznia 04:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what? Your turning this into something it isn't, and I'm done playing your games. I dispute that this article has a NPOV. It's that simple. Plrenty of other people also have this view (as displayed by their comments on this very page). The NPOV dispute tag is staying. It's not about how wrong, incorrect, and whatever else you are. That doesn't matter. This article does not have a NPOV. It didn't before - And now (after the concerned was raised on this page) it has even less of a NPOV.

So lets not get into your views on this. Lets not talk about how the FTC handed down some rule - At which point Wegmans didn't challenge it (and Wegmans has plenty of power to mount a powerful challenge). No. Instead they fixed everything. Not in 12 months... Not in 6 months... Not even in 3 months. They did it in what? 1 month? Maybe 2? What would this have took any other typical company to do (even with a honest desire to change)? 6 months? Maybe even longer...

But hey... Lets not talk about that. NPOV? Sure... If your part of the Goverment and living in China!

So... Once again. The ultimatum is this. Get rid of the links to the video, or keep the NPOV dispute tag. And you want to know why I can make this ultimatum? Because I STILL HAVE THE DISPUTE EVEN WITH OUT THE VIDEO LINK. I just wouldn't make a big deal about the rest because I simply don't have enough time to fix the entire World's problems and as such I really need to pick my battles. Ya ya... I know what your thinking. "You couldn't fix nearly any of the World's problems". And you would be right... So I guess I really need to pick which ones to fight huh?

PS If you consider yourself reasonable.... Just... WOW!--Anthony 04:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As to how quickly Wegmans complied with the FTC ruling, that's neither here nor there. But since you raise the point, I'll respond. No egg producer who used the misleading ACC label had the choice to wait six months or longer. Under pressure from the FTC, the United Egg Producers (of which Wegmans is a member) consented to do away with the label by March, 2006. This doesn't mean they had to clean up their farm or "fix" anything; they simply had to remove a lousy label from their packaging.
Again Anthony, I really encourage you to read Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute. NPOV doesn't mean "A point of view that Anthony agrees with." Nor does it mean "purging any references that Anthony disagrees with." It means accurately presenting both sides of the dispute -- and that means including references to the claims made by both sides.
Hoss Firooznia 05:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you had fun? I sure hope so, because I'm no longer going to argue with you. Your right. It's not about "purging any references that Anthony disagrees with." It's about keeping anything and/or deleting anything Hoss wants and/or doesn't want.

Well it sure was fun getting into a fight with some kid at a keyboard, but now I think I'm done - No. I AM done. Do as you will. But I assure you ANY attempt to remove the dispute tag will be met with it being fixed - Yep that's right my little friend. Fixed.

...And you can keep crying, but at some point people just start to ignore the crying. Guess what?--Anthony 03:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that inclusion of a link to non-neutral primary source material necessarily compromises neutral point of view, and a look at Wikipedia's best articles confirms this. A reference to an outside source is not an endorsement that the source is neutral, or even correct; only that it's relevant. Would you disagree that the film is relevant to a description of the controversy that it sparked?
The concern I've been able to sift from your comments is that you are uncomfortable with the use of the word "documentary" to describe the film. I'd remind you that the word "documentary" is used for almost any non-fiction film, whether or not it is reliable or neutral. See, for instance, the Wikipedia entries on "Stolen Honor" and "Roger & Me".
I am removing the NPOV tag, but I am still eager to hear your constructive criticism. I'd appreciate it if your comments would focus on the text of the article we are writing together, and if your criticism was accompanied by concrete suggestions for improvement. will.jennings 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...Way to long (IMO) to go under the orginal heading

"Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all"

This entire chicken farm thing is without question the minority. Hoss' version of the article is without question more detailed (and more misleading). Really. My patience in this regard has been nothing but great. You have tested me quite well. However my patience is now gone. It actually does not seem to matter who is right at all. If more people thought the Earth was flat it would seem that would be the lead of that section in the Earth article (at least that's how I'm reading it).

Something that seems to have been lost in the "I'm right and you are wrong" mentality is that I don't want to allow this chicken egg farm in the article at all. That simply is not true. Sure I don't think it has any merit, but at no point what so ever have I tried to remove reference of it. As the NPOV article says. You can not make companies out to look evil. Or rather - You can't paint an article to your liking. Once again if that's not what is going on here I don't know what is.

"To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

Now I'm going to bring this point of the NPOV article up for one very important reason. As already stated I have no intent to remove reference. It has been quite established that this group thinks the chickens have been mistreated with a link to their site. If the reader wants to learn more they are quite capable. Nothing holds them back. If this group wants their more then welcome to create a page on Wikipedia about their views. Actually I don't think their allowed to do that under the "notable" rule, but at that point I would have no interest what-so-ever.

"If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject"

One expert says the egg farm is one of the very best in the Country. This group doesn't have any experts that agree with its views.

"None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views."

Once again. Go create your own Wikipedia page. I don't care.

"But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth."

Once again. I don't care - But you might want to keep that fact in mind.

"Certainly, there are bound to be borderline cases where a fact is disputed but we're not sure if we should take the dispute seriously, or where the distinction between fact and opinion will itself necessarily be in dispute."

I'm pretty sure this is the reality of this article. The majority do not take this dispute by the group seriously. I won't bore you with the details in this area (you are quite welcome to read it though), however it pretty much says that views (as I'm pretty sure are what these are being called by the group - Views) are not welcome. It's so simple. You of course are welcome to use facts to back up your claims, but I can assure you people in Rochester are very loyal to Wegmans so a survey would do no good - And you continue to have no facts.

"If we're going to characterize disputes fairly, we should present competing views with a consistently positive, sympathetic tone."

This may not be true on my side of things. However we are talking about potential criminals here and I'll be hard pressed to say anything good about a criminal. With that in mind the way I have written about this group in the article... In the same way newspapers did so once again I'm not very sure I'm doing anything wrong.

"for instance, refuting opposing views as one goes along makes them look a lot worse than collecting them in an opinions-of-opponents section.

We should, instead, write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible"

Well I guess that explains that. The tone is fine on my part. It's not just plausible that these people were charged with criminal action - They in fact have been.

"I agree with the nonbias policy but there are some here who seem completely, irremediably biased. I have to go around and clean up after them. What do I do?

Unless the case is really egregious, maybe the best thing is to call attention to the problem publicly, pointing the perpetrators to this page (but politely — one gets more flies with honey than with vinegar) and asking others to help. See Dispute resolution for more ideas. There must surely be a point beyond which our very strong interest in being a completely open project is trumped by the interest the vast majority of our writers have, in being able to get work done without constantly having to fix the intrusions of people who do not respect our policy."

Ironic no? I guess the bottom line is this. This article has been biased. However even after being biased it became MORE biased. At this point there is nothing more that these biased people can do. No. That's not true. They can go through the "dispute resolution" process. But at this point I don't think that is going to happen. Once again I don't really care. You start causing much more trouble and perhaps I'll do it myself.

"we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated"

Trust me. If I was not being looking at this fairly then we would be not be as far as we are. "What are kidding me?!?!?!" Well it may not seem very far (because it's not) but we could have easily gone nowhere at all.

"it is our job to work together, mainly adding or improving content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides."

I have attempted to compromise over and over with nothing in return from the other side. I have bent over backwards. I'm getting the short end the stick. Compromise. You do know what that is right? You agree on certain terms. You don't ignore the other side. You sure don't argue with something that can't be argued. The NPOV of an article either does or doesn't exist. There are no two ways about it.--Anthony 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for continuing to work on this article, Anthony. I know that it's true, as you say, that it would not be as far along if you were not trying to be fair.
Your reaction to the article as it stands may very well be an indication that it needs improvement, but I am having great difficulty trying to sift concrete suggestions from your responses. One of the points you mention is that the article doesn't mention Benjamin Lucio-Martinez's quote that the farm is among the best in the country in his opinion. I've added a sentence that incorporates that.
If there are specific additional pieces of information that need to be included, or particular phrasings that are problematic, let's change that. will.jennings 00:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Employees

On Wikipedia what is the policy on listing employee numbers? Do we round, or do we give exact figures when companies release exact numbers? I would look at other companies, but I assume most companies simply give rounded numbers (which would of course result in rounded numbers on Wikipedia).--Anthony 03:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know the policy but even if the company released an exact figure on day X, by day Z it would probably be different. I think we can assume that all figures are approximate; if we can have an accuracy of +/- 10%, that's probably doing well. Thatcher131 03:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

On a different egg related note, Adam Durand, the leader of the break-in at Wgman's egg farm, was found guilty. Melanie Ippolito and Megan Cosgrove earlier pled guilty to lesser charges of trespass, but Durand went to trial and was found guilty of third degree trespass. In an unexpected sentance, Durand received six months of jail time and one year of probation. Wegmans food markets urged the judge to impose jail time in a missive addressed to the court. Source: http://www.waynetimes.com/052206.pdf

[edit] Typical Wegmans

The picture's caption says it's of a "typical" Wegmans. I'm not sure I would agree with this. While it is the look of the newer stores there are many many more that are older and look nothing like it.

I just want to make the wording more true. It's as simple as changing "typical" to "newer" I'm sure.--Anthony 02:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Or "current prototype". J.reed 03:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "typical 2000s-era Wegmans". Powers 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Wegmans here in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania opened a fortnight ago. Its architecture has apparently edged the chain's appearance toward a RATHER stately look and concept; its facade is replete with a tall steeple---YES, a steeple---with a clock: like a courthouse or a place of [food] worship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.74.194 (talk) 02:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism split

October 13, I added the Split Section tag for criticism because I do believe that it has grown to be extremely too long. I suggest that a separate article be created for the group, and that the criticism section be reduced to a paragraph at the most, with a link to a new page.

The egg story is a subject that is NOT even in the news anymore locally, and it is an issue that has been resolved. It is a subject that does not require that long of an explanation under the criticism category for this article. John in New York 23:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Jim Dunning 19:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Store Listings

I propose that we don't list "1 store" for cities that only have one store, locations that have more than one, we list them as (20 stores) or (2 stores) after the city. Coming Soon stores shouldn't be included in the total yet also. Does anyone agree/disagree? J.reed 01:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a store listing at all? How does that information have any impact on anything that justifies inclusion? Should every retail chain list all their locations? Should Walmart list all X thousand locations? - Taxman Talk 16:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Excellent point. Why not just link to the list of stores on the Wegmans website? [2] Anson2995 18:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations)#Chains and franchises states that a "List of Wal-Marts in China" would be informative. J.reed 09:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wegmans is not Wal-Mart though. And they don't have locations in any foreign Country.--Anthony 12:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

On the same note: is a "birds-eye view" of each store needed? --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 22:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Can someone confirm I didn't mess up the references?

One of the Fortune references used to be #5 until I used that one's format to add the BusinessWeek one. Seems curious it wouldn't become #15--Anthony 12:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It's the order of the reference in the article. Adding a reference at the end of the article would guarantee it appearing as the last note. Likewise, adding a reference at the top of the article will increase its chances of being the first note. Clipper471 23:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Bird's eye view" feature

There are a few issues with this aerial image feature, which I breifly mentioned in my edit summary, so allow me to elaborate. First, in order to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, it is compulsory that links be verified for accuracy and relevance to the material at hand. Unfortunately, Microsoft's live local search feature is not very reliable. Though each link you placed, DJvac, is unique, and I applaud your effort, they do not however maintain their original integrity (i.e. all the links take us directly back to the main search page instead of the original infomation you, DJvac, intended to direct us to). So be it known that linking from Microsoft's live local search feature is ill-advised and inappropriate for Wikipedia.

In addition, I take issue with your intent, DJvac, to link us to an aerial image of ALL 71 Wegmans stores. Some might call this barrage of repetitive information redundant, and the rationale behind this arguement would be incredibly clear. To support this, I would add that Wikipedia is intended as a online encyclopedia, and like any other encyclopedia, conveys a COMPREHENSIVE sum of information on a specified topic in the most SUCCINCT manner possible. As such, it would be in the best interests of this article and Wikipedia to limit your linkage to a single aerial (only if the website ever allows the links to work properly for a Wikipedia article). Its sort of like trying to put an actual image of every single store into the article. I mean, I know Wegmans is one of the best things to ever happen to humanity, but its not the freaking Buddha. Seriously, please be more considerate of the context in which you are trying to convey certain information. Thanks. Sinisterminister 05:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed wholeheartedly. A list of links to aerial images is no different than a list of store locations, the latter of which was removed by consensus in a section above. --TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 15:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree as well. While ackowledging the effort to compile that list, I don't see why a reader would find that useful. Anson2995 18:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
DJvac is not going to join this discussion ... he would have already if he were so inclined. I strongly suggest you request the page be protected as I already have for Tops, which he's been doing the same thing to. I am also reporting him at WP:AN/I.

If you choose not to seek protection, consider any attempt to restore the material vandalism. Daniel Case 02:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not trying to argue with you guys on the merits of the links... The links do go to their intended locations. I'm not sure if it's a browser issue or what, but whatever it is, it's on your end. Not Micrsoft's.--Anthony 04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DJvac blocked

He has received a 48-hour block. Daniel Case 04:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colleen Wegman

Since Colleen Wegman has been redirected to this article, I removed the circular wikilinks to her name ... Happy Editing! —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 00:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The same for her brother, Danny Wegman. —72.75.72.63 (talk · contribs) 16:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)