Talk:Kraft Dinner/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Photos

Some logo shots and box covers should be placed on this article, like the US and Canadian versions that say "Macaroni and Cheese", "Mac and Cheese", "KD" and "Kraft Dinner" (since all four are used on boxes). 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Also some shots of the product itself, before cooking. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 13:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

Move. I've read the archived "Proposed Move" section and find it simply atrocious that the legitimate move of this article was blocked because a collection of people, who made no rational argument other than their petty nationalism, wrote in to block it. The fact stands; no statistically significant group of English speakers refers to the product in this way and that, at best, the name listed is archaic or colloquial. The statistically insignificant proportion of the English speaking population that do use the archaic and colloquial term, even the article refers to as guilty of a regionalistic use. Are we really going to let an archaic regionalism stand because of petty nationalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Egoist 1 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please kindly have regard to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. It is difficult to take your comments seriously when you engage in name-calling and insults. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 11:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't really engage in name calling, now did I. If one were dealing with a racist, it would be appropriate to call him a racist. It would not be name calling. Such is the case with a nationalist. Perhaps "petty" was a poor word choice, but let's face it, the matter really is petty and if one need be nationalistic about anything, it isn't the name of a boxed, processed food product.

Since I attacked no one personally, wasn't being harassing, vulgar or disruptive, I guess what you're saying that by doing that what I've done is, I've made "an ill-considered accusation of impropriety." Well...

The idea of assuming good faith is that you do so until evidence to the contrary exists. At a certain point any sane person, having seen every valid argument ignored or disregarded, must realize that one side of the argument is not acting in good faith. In fact Civility itself tells me "The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence."

Perhaps I'm not the greatest consensus builder on the planet. Perhaps my words were angrier than they needed to be and people could become upset with the how strongly I worded them. And you're right that it probably won't win me friends to say what I've just said. If so I apologize for the strength of the wording, but only for its strength and not for its content. At a certain point, one needs to be honest about what's going on. We simply need to quit politely ignoring that this is what it is; some form of overt nationalism derailing an encyclopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Egoist 1 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As to a specific accusation of impropriety, look at how many of those opposing the move justify their opposition specifically referencing Canada, and the products history there. And note another opposers name contains the Canadian place name Saskatchewan, for whatever that's worth. In fact, Skeezix, you are one of only two opposers who did not specifically or implicitly reference Canada as a reason in your opposition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Egoist 1 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

To make my position clear:

Any further argument that references Canadian usage is rightly assumed to be NPOV and must be disregarded for Nationalism and is utterly irrelevant to consensus. This includes ALL Nationalistic arguments from 2009. Further, any argument that does not specifically or decisively refute any non-NPOV argument in the move section for 2009, or does not advance a new non-Nationalistic argument, is irrelevant to consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Egoist 1 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Egoist, you are entited to disagree with the point smade by others, and to say that the points they have made are irrelevant. However, no matter how you try to rationalize it (as you have tried above), I can't imagine any circumstances where it would be acceptable in this context to accuse others of being petty nationalists, biased or irrational. Argue the substance, avoid name calling, and assume that everyone is working together to produce the best possible article. There is nothing in the previous discussion that justifies your accusations of impropriety. Again, I suggest to you that throwing around accusations such as NPOV and nationalism doesn't help your case at all, as it completely distracts from the main point you are trying to make.

As for consensus, it isn't up to you to declare what is acceptable and what is out of bounds. You can state that you believe their comments to be irrelevant, but at the end of the day, that remains your opinion, and other editors are entitled to opinions that may or may not differ from yours. You should spend more time trying to convince others of your point of view, by making compelling arguments in favour of your position, rather than telling them that their opinions don't matter. That's how Wikipedia works. I hope that helps. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

• Egoist, I wouldn't necessarily be against your proposed move, but the way you are acting is ridiculous. Please address the community civilly, address only the issue at hand not specific parties, and request the move officially, by going to this page: WP:RM and following the instructions on listing a controversial move. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Nutritional information

This edit removes information that may be useful to uninformed readers. Scope remains for praise of the nutritional values of salt and saturated fat, as well as for the uselessness of dietary fiber should some basis be found for including it. Fred Talk 20:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The edit in question is synthesis unless you have a source that specifically identifies those nutrients as meaningful when discussing this product and identifies the amounts as significant/insignificant. Yes, you have a source showing the amounts of fat/sat fat/sodium/fiber/whatever in the product. Yes, you can certainly find sources saying X mg/% is "significant" or "very little". However, you cannot add those together for the conclusions shown. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, you edits are problematic in their tone. Further, the image you added was improper, and way too large. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 03:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this information, but not the image. I am sorry if you don't like my tone. Please contact the manufacturer and request modification of the product if you feel there are problems with its formulation. Fred Talk 17:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I see someone else has beaten me to removing the claims. The problem is not with the "formulation of the product". The problem is your presentation of your personal interpretation of the raw facts. Yes, we can verify the number of calories, mgs sodium, etc. per serving We can certainly also find various sources giving various figures as to what would be a "significant" amount of sodium, etc. per serving. We cannot, however, find a reliable source saying that this product has a significant amount of sodium, etc. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see the cited sources. Information about the subject of an article is properly included in the article, not excluded by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Fred Talk 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how you feel that source meets the requirements under WP:RS. Specifically, do they have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I see no indication of that. Rather, I see a website that digests nutritional data and spits out comments on various nutrients based on some black box formula. We are not presented with data from a reliable source commenting on the product, instead we have the "opinions" of that formula. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

SummerPhD, GoodGuide is being used as a source for the ingredients in Kraft Dinner, which is simply copied off the package. The actual source is Kraft. If I had a package of the product that would be a reliable source too. GoodGuide's ratings might be a problem, but they are not cited. Fred Talk 13:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Kraft's Nutritional Label is from their website and is also the same as is on their box. (Click on nutritional info to access it). Fred Talk 13:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As for your claims about this not being in WP:Not, please this section, Wikipedia is no a complete exposition of all possible details, that is directly in the policy, so please do not keep adding this data back in. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerem43, The article is about a food product. The ingredients and the nutritional issues the product raises are not extraneous data. There might be more or less information and it could be presented in different ways, but you simply removed it all. Fred Talk 13:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The nutrition information is in the info box, any other presentation is not needed. As summer stated, any derivative information is original research. Unless you can present a reliable, secondary source that makes the conclusions, any addition is original research.--Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It needs to be accurate. The information in the infobox is for the unprepared product. There is no basis for not permitting information about nutrition and ingredients of a food in a section of the article. Although it is possible that the infobox could be adapted to present full information. Fred Talk 18:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is as accurate as you are going to get, the way you prepare it varies the nutrition values. Based on the type of milk you use, weather you use butter or margarine and other factors will change the approximate nutrition values. Best to use the published numbers. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 21:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The nutrition label on the box has the information for the product prepared with margarine and 2% milk; look in the footnote to total fat in the nutritional facts label. Those are the published numbers. Fred Talk 09:01, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Last call

As there have been no good arguments raised against including nutritional and ingredient information in the article, unless there are within 24 hours, I will edit the article to include the information. Fred Talk 12:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Factual nutritional information from the box is fine, IMO. Heck, we have a box for that. It obviously needs to include explanation of the ingredients used in the preparation that resulted in those numbers (whole, 2%, skim, etc.). "Nutritional information" on the significance, impact or concerns about that data (too much X, too little Y, ingredient Q is a concern, whatever) would need a reliable source directly stating that about this product. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it isn't a matter of too little or too much. Macaroni and cheese, however made, will have much fat, little fiber, and lots of salt, see [1] That choice is made when you chose macaroni and cheese. On GoodGuide, at least, the ratings involve comparison between brands not with absolute values. Fred Talk 18:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem we're raising here isn't how nutritious the product is, it is the reliability of the source you wish to use. What are their testing methods? What are their credentials? Are the a site that pushes organics over regular products? You have to look at these factors, and others, before trying to utilize the site as a source. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to question the ingredients list which is what it is being used for. The package itself could be used, but Kraft Dinners are so expensive that I hesitate to buy a package just for that. Fred Talk 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No one is questioning the inclusion of the ingredients list (seems rather trivial, but whatever floats your boat...). What we ARE questioning is the original research you've included with it in the past. Saying the ingredients are X, Y, and Z is fine. Saying "there is a lot of X and Y is a concern" is not OK. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. That is what I'm concerned about. I'm starting to see a pattern. Fred Talk 17:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Neither us has a COI issue as neither of us works for Kraft or its subsidiaries; what we do have is an OR issue with your additions. To say anything other than that appears to be an attempt to misconstrue the situation in order to deliberately cloud our positions on the issue. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you know about each other and who do you work for? Please answer this question without disclosing information about personal identity. Fred Talk 12:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at my user page if you are interested... --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Please discuss content, not editors. If you feel you have reason to believe anyone here has a conflict of interest or are colluding, please address these concerns to the proper forum. The article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

We enforce the conflict of interest policy. I'll forward my concerns to the appropriate forum if necessary, but it is better to work out issues here. Fred Talk 14:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with our policies. I see no indication of a COI here. This page is for discussing improvements to the article. If you feel there is substantial indication to the contrary (maybe I'm a "sleeper agent", planted here 4 years ago to make 30,000 edits to hide my true intentions...), feel free to raise the issue in the appropriate forum. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

There has to be an explanation for you repeatedly removing sourced information from the article which is unfavorable to the product. For example you removed the total amount of 710 mg of sodium in the prepared product. You have done that twice. The nutrition label on the box has the information for the product prepared with margarine and 2% milk; look in the footnote to total fat in the nutritional facts label. Those are the published numbers. They are also present in the original source I cited, which is the actual information published by Kraft on its packages. It is also published on the actual package which you also removed. It is inappropriate to remove well-sourced information from an article. Fred Talk 01:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is possible you are unable to read the nutritional label. But if that is true you need to not edit regarding the matters contained in the nutritional label. There is a footnote to "Total Fat 3.5 g" which gives information for the prepared product. Fred Talk 01:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"There has to be an explanation..." Well, there is an explanation. Let's test the theories: Theory one (yours) holds that I (and, it seems, one other editor) work for Kraft. It also requires an assumption of bad faith, jumping to conclusions, not reading edit summaries and ignoring anything you might care to actually dig up about me on Wikipedia. Theory two requires an assumption of good faith* and/or reading edit summaries** and/or digging up info about me which is freely available***. (*WP:AGF, **[2][3][4], ***DIY, others have.) - SummerPhD (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nutritional value

I like the idea of combining the nutritional info for packaged/prepared in one box. However, the template causes problems, forcing the prepared energy and sodium info to the bottom, separate from the rest. Unless someone else feels like doing it first, I'll take the time to learn tables on WP and make a manual table out of it. Heck, I've been here long enough, you'd think i know how to do that by now :) - SummerPhD (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, we could just edit the template itself as it is open and unlocked. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever works. I personally don't have any experience futzing with templates. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Structure of macaroni and cheese articles

Currently we have a macaroni and cheese article and a Kraft Dinner article, but looking at the GoodGuide macaroni and cheese entry you can see there is a large variety of products on the market, not only numerous knockoffs of Kraft Dinner but other types of convenience food such as Chef Boyardee, Macaroni & Cheese, a pre-prepared product, and Banquet, Macaroni and Cheese, a frozen dinner.

Kraft Dinner is what I would call an iconic product, but it is only one of a large number of nearly identical packaged products consisting of dry macaroni and cheese sauce prepared by adding butter and milk. Perhaps our article should be about that formulation rather than about a particular trade marked product. There is also the question of how the macaroni and cheese article should handle this wide variety. Fred Talk 09:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Just consider the facial tissue and Kleenex articles. Kleenex is a brand of facial tissue, and a popular one, just like Kraft Dinner is a popular variety of mac & cheese. There's no reason that either Kleenex or Kraft Dinner should be merged into those respective articles nor should this article reflect any other brands of mac & cheese. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 09:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering though whether such articles ought to be more about the brand than the product, which, in itself, is not particularly notable as compared to other iterations of packaged macaroni and cheese. Fred Talk 19:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked over the article and I see that it references the brand wholly; not once does it just give information about mac & cheese in general. Can you point out where you are seeing this?. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 14:16, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Information about the ingredients and the nutritional label were removed by other editors. I'm wondering what is needed is an article about packaged macaroni and cheese the generic product, not exclusion of the specific information about Kraft Dinner, which I believe is improper. Fred Talk 00:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

No mystery as to why I removed the nutritional information: I made it quite clear in the edit summary.[5] - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Noodle statue

This article would be greatly improved if we could add a picture of one of the noodle statues. There may be one at Fisherman’s Wharf or Wrigley Field.

The article is about the product. Adding a photo of one element of one advertising campaign seems, IMO, to be straying a bit far from the topic. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about the brand. Packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix is common as dirt. It is notable only because of its poor nutritional attributes. When someone spends $50 million dollars a year promoting a brand and successfully sells it at a substantial premium over the essentially identical generic product, that is notable, and there is information published about that aspect of the subject in reliable sources. Such publication is the touchstone of notability. Fred Talk 21:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is about "Kraft Dinner". It's a brand and a product. Kraft Dinner is notable because there is significant coverage in independent reliable sources about it. Editors ranting are as common as dirt. That an editor has a burr under their saddle about a particular product doesn't change reality. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Characterizing general dismay by nutritional experts at the consequences to health of general consumption of this and similar convenience foods as my personal issue is inappropriate. I use the product; I like the product, but there are issues. Fred Talk 13:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not categorizing "general dismay by nutritional experts" as anything. I am categorizing your apparent insistance that we evaluate this product and draw findings from sources not discussing this product as a pointless waste of time. Your comment (21:11, 18 June 2010 above) is not discussing changes to the associate article and is an off-topic, unsourced rant. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Well sourced relevant information should not be removed from an article. Convenience foods are notable for the nutritional problems they present. That is well sourced. Fred Talk 21:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So far, every editor to the talk page, except you, feels this does not belong in the article. At present, restoring the information is editing against consensus. If you continue down that road, you will eventually wind up trying to defend your actions in another forum. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So you say, but what sources are there besides the company itself, its packaging, the NYT's article and two other minor ones? Fred Talk 01:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible sources

• "Kraft Mac & Cheese: A Marketing 50 Case Study" article by Emily Bryson York in Advertising Age November 17, 2008 Fred Talk 02:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "U.S. food giants tailor products, marketing to international palates: There's no accounting for taste: Kraft's Tang is a global sensation but its iconic macaroni and cheese is not." article by Mike Hughlett in The Los Angeles Times March 25, 2010 Fred Talk 02:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you have a point? This page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for ranting. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Just looking up sources. Fred Talk 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Microwaveable bagel sticks, focaccia pizza from Kraft" article by David Sterrett in Chicago Business Feb. 19, 2008 Fred Talk 03:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "How to get more Facebook fans" by Drew McLellan on Drew's Marketing Minute (might be considered a blog, but he's a genuine expert) Fred Talk 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• Historical photos Fred Talk 03:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Kraft Fires Up Mac and Cheese On All Cylinders" LocalAdvertising.Com Fred Talk 03:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "Kraft Macaroni's Story by Kraft Macaroni on OurStory.Com Some good history here. Fred Talk 04:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
• "NUTRITION CRITERIA - CONVENIENT MEALS" Sensible Solutions program Fred Talk 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ingredients

A list of ingredients, sourced from the manufacturer, certainly does belong in the article. The food coloring, particularly, is an issue, but so are all other ingredients, especially as compared to other formulations of packaged dry macaroni and cheese mix. Fred Talk 13:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That you take issue with one or more of the ingredients is a moot point. Yes, the ingredients list is sourced to a reliable source (the company itself). However, there is a whole lot more we could source to the company that we do not mention because no independent reliable source has seen reason to discuss the ingredients list. I can see no neutral reason to list the ingredients. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred, as one of the more senior members of the Food and Drink WikiProject I just want to let you know that including the ingredients of a commercial products is not proper. If you look at just about any article on foodstuffs, you will not find an ingredient list. What you usually find is a simple description of the product that does not go into detail of the exact ingredients. This is inline with the WP:What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically keeping food articles from being complete expositions of all possible details about the product. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No status licenses you to remove well-sourced relevant information from an article. Fred Talk 21:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The consensus presented here licenses him to do just that. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SummersPhD: No "consensus" was presented here, just the views of two users and a non-sourced anecdotal that "just about any" article on prepared food does not have ingredient lists. I am with Fred Bauder: the ingredient list adds value and belongs into the article. -- 192.223.140.46 (talk) 11:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it is extremely rude to auto-revert a perfectly valid edit done by one of the wiki's most senior admins with the comment "identified as vandalism" [6]. This does not reflect well on you as an editor... (Not to speak of the fact that as a self-proclaimed "senior editor" you ought to be able to resolve conflicts of opinion by discussion on the talk page, rather than revert wars.) -- 192.223.140.46 (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The above two comments are by me -- Marcika (talk) 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Marcika, I have not accused anyone of vandalism, nor identified any of his edits as vandalism. In this entire discussion I have tried to maintain civility and assume good faith regarding Fred's contributions.

Further, I have explained my reasoning and provided links to the policy that covers this. Regardless of him being an administrator, Fred's edits are incorrect. I provided reasoning and examples of how it is correct and he has yet to provided a policy based reason why his edit should be included. My example above is that that there is no other article in this class that includes verbatim pastes of the ingredients and instructions of the product is an example of the policy I have been quoting since day one of this discussion. My point has been all along that saying it exists, therefore it should be included violates WP:Not which is a well-know, long-standing policy. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The basis for including the ingredients list, as near as I can tell is this: we can verify it and an editor who takes issue with some of the ingredients wants to include it. Having been repeatedly prevented from including WP:SYN and WP:OR along with that list, said editor wishes to include the list anyway. After all, it is reliably sourced.

The basis for not including it is this: That we can verify the list to a primary source says nothing of its relevance. The editor's WP:SYN and WP:OR reasons for including it are moot. Other food articles generally do not provide such a list. Wikipedia is not a random collection of facts. There are no independent reliable sources that provide such a listing other than as a mere mirror of Kraft's info (i.e., we don't have a source discussing the ingredients in re this product). (As a thought experiment, we can certainly source how much water to boil the noodles in to the same source but would clearly not include that either.)

I am not now, nor have I ever been, an employee of Kraft (or, if it applies, their parent company(s) or subsidiaries). Hopefully that resolves the "concern" to that effect above. (Additionally, I have never been funded by grants from Kraft (though it's quite possible someone in my large employer's sphere has been or is). My tagging one of the repeated additions of the ingredients as vandalism was born of misremembering several of the contributers to this talk page as having opposed such an inclusion (when, in fact, only one of them had actually weighed in on the issue) and frustration from the WP:SYN/WP:OR that has frequently been included with these additions. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts on this? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts or does my analysis stand? - SummerPhD (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Kraft Dinner

I have again reverted your additions to Kraft Dinner as they are against the consensus currently established on that article's talk page. Please do not restore the information again so long as that consensus remains. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but two editors engaged in POV editing is not a consensus. Fred Talk 00:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Two editors do not have the authority to overrule the general Wikipedia practice that relevant information published by reliable sources should be included in articles. Fred Talk 00:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So, I post a note to your talk page. You copy it to my talk page and respond to it there. Then, after I respond to that, you copy it here without my response. At this point, I'm guessing you'll copy it to, oh, hell, who knows? - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why this has been copied and distributed. That doesn't seem to be the best way to address the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"Recent edits"

A reliable source says something about "convenience foods" in general. By calling Kraft Dinner a convenience food, that source does not suddenly have something to say about Kraft Dinner. That is the essence of synthesis. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but the product is a convenience food with the usual problems convenience foods present. No creative or original work is involved in appropriately labeling the product, in fact, it is so labeled by Kraft. The thing is, we are all in this together. Kraft has done everything it can to formulate and market healthy alternatives, but essentially mass-marketed pasta products present nutritional problems. Fred Talk 20:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion that it has what you believe are the "usual problems convenience foods present" is your opinion/belief. This talk page is not a platform for your beliefs. If you have an independent reliable source discussing the nutrition of this product add it to the article. If you do not, your A + B = C conclusion is not an acceptable alternative. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Off topic

This addition: "The majority of the American public are either obese or overweight, yet their diet often lacks sufficient amounts of essential vitamins and minerals." is sourced to [7], a USDA report discussing "Dietary Guidelines for Americans". The report in question does not, so far as I am able to find, mention this product. As such, its inclusion in this article is off topic. Taken in the context of the rest of the paragraph, it is sythesis, meant to encourage the use of the "alternate prep" method. While this may be sound dietary advice, this conclusion is not presented by an independent reliable source. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Obviously relevant information from a reliable source is not synthesis or original work. It functions as background information placing the alternate prep method in context. Fred Talk 20:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The report you cite does not mention this product. Adding to the article is WP:SYN. Follow the bouncing ball: the report says things about convenience foods (that's "A"), this product is a convenience food (that's "B"), therefore' what the report says is relevant to this article (that's "C"). - SummerPhD (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Sensible Solutions" description

This section: "Kraft has Sensible Solutions nutritional criteria which take into consideration aspects such as amounts of sodium, saturated fat, transfat, and essential vitamins and minerals in their products." is sourced to [8], [9] and [10].

The explanation is problematic. The first source says, "CONVENIENT MEAL PRODUCTS can qualify for Sensible Solution in one of two ways (per serving). All qualifying products must be reviewed and approved by Kraft's Nutrition Department to ensure they are nutritionally appropriate." To quilfy, the product must either meet one criterion in list A or one from list B and one from list C. The explanation used in the article fails to include aspects Kraft may use to qualify a product (fiber 10%DV+, 1/2 serving of fruits or vegetables, 8g+ whole grains, a "functional benefit", 250-600 calories, <35% calories from total fat, <25% calories from added sugar, 60-90mg cholesterol and Kraft's "review" (whatever that might be)). The description in the article seems to describe a meaningful examination of the nutritional aspects of the product. Kraft's actual criteria are seemingly far more lax. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Some products seem to qualify due to having extra calcium and being kid friendly if specially prepared. I'm rather skeptical whether even an adult would find them palatable. Fred Talk 23:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that tip. What do these thoughts have to do with improving the article? (I've significantly altered the problematic addition.) - SummerPhD (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It illustrates efforts by Kraft to address the nutritional issues presented by the product as well as the difficulties presented by a pasta and dairy product. Fred Talk 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion of what it illustrates is moot. It illustrates something Kraft claims about it's own product. It does not have extra calcium nor is it more "kid friendly" (whatever they might mean by that) if "specially prepared". The "nutritional issues" and "difficulties" are all your synthesis and of no consequence here. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing quote

This section: "According to Kraft: "Mac & Cheese Spirals and Mac & Cheese charactered products qualify for Sensible Solutions as a kid friendly source of calcium when prepared as directed on package with 1/2 Tbsp unsalted butter and 3 Tbsp fat free milk."" is sourced to [11], [12] and [13].

I am unable to find the quote used above. The first source comes closest with "Mac & Cheese Spirals and Mac & Cheese charactered products qualify for Sensible Solution when prepared as directed on package with 1/2 Tbsp unsalted butter and 3 Tbsp fat free milk." The section "...as a kid friendly source of calcium ..." is not present. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it qualifies on two counts, but Kraft does not use language which combines the two criteria on which it succeeds in so many words. Fred Talk 23:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The quote in question that I removed and you restored does not exist as provided. I've fixed it. Yes, Kraft characterizes the product as a source of calcium and as "kid friendly" (which I have included, though I don't see Kraft's judgement of their own products as being particularly meaningful...). You are incorrect in your belief that these two issues would qualify the product for their "Sensible Solutions" designation. Note that "kid friendly" is not a consideration and the "alternate prep" method needed to qualify does not significantly alter the calcium content. If anyone feels the whole section on "Sensible Solutions" and Kraft's other claims should be axed, I'm fine with that (as I said, I don't see it as meaningful). The previous version was wrong in several ways, though. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I think they have added extra calcium to products that are especially marketed to kids, [14]. Fred Talk 20:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for sharing what you think. Now can we get back to discussing possible improvements to the article? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Civil please. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)