Talk:Kraft Foods/Archives/2013

Kraft and Proposition 37

I'm concerned that this section, which has apparently been added (and deleted and re-added multiple times) to the articles describing every company that contributed to the anti Prop 37 campaign, is little more than an advertisement for boycott sponsored by organizers of the pro-37 campaign. The fact that this section has been repeatedly added and deleted by itself seems to be an indication that it represents a non-neutral POV, otherwise why would it engender such strong editorial activity?

Kraft and other companies routinely contribute to political campaigns and advocacy groups that they feel support their interests. If we included a separately headed section for each advocacy group or political campaign that Kraft and other companies contributed to, the corresponding Wikipedia articles would be little more than a lengthy list of political contributions.

This material could reasonably be covered in an article on Prop 37 itself, but I believe that its inclusion in company articles, let alone as a separately headed section, by itself represents excess weight and thus a non-neutral POV.

I'd like to suggest that we find some compromise here rather than engage in an article reversion war.

Thanks,

Alfred Bertheim (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• I basically agree. I think this could be included in a section on Kraft's political involvements, or on controversies involving Kraft. I only disagreed with removing the information entirely; that seemed like a bit too much whitewashing for me. Brianyoumans (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Brian. I guess I still feel that the inclusion of this issue is inappropriate politicizing (further evidence for the advocacy nature of its inclusion is that an identical section was added to the Wikipedia entry of every anti-37 contributor by the same first-time Wikipedia editor in the immediate aftermath of the referendum loss). Nonetheless, I consider this an acceptable compromise. Alfred Bertheim (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Just because some information was added by an editor with an agenda, doesn't mean that it is inappropriate to keep in the article. As long as it is notable and sourced, why not keep it? Brianyoumans (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Brian, I agree that the fact that someone made an edit with the goal of persuading and not merely informing is not proof that the entry is inappropriate or of undue weight. But I do think it is a red flag.

Is this boycott noteworthy? The only place I've seen it mentioned is here on Wikipedia. None of the companies on the boycott list have reduced their earnings estimates. (How many Kraft products does the average organic food advocate buy anyway?).

If the first quarter revenues of companies on the list are unaffected in Q1 2013, I think this material should be removed for excess weight and by implication, non neutral POV. Alfred Bertheim (talk) ~ —Preceding undated comment added 21:36, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Financial data

Should the financial data listed here not be at Mondelez? It is my understanding that the legal successor of the old Kraft, is in fact Mondelez (despite the way the naming went), and that the new Kraft is therefore the company that should rightly not yet have financial data available. Is this not the way it happened? - Estoy Aquí (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Financial Data in InfoBox

I updated the financials of Kraft to reflect the 2012 Annual Report (DTD March 21, 2013).
Pediconem (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

ream cheese

Is it ok to use cream cheese that has been refrigerated that is a yer old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.121.211 (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)