Talk:Wegmans/Archive 1

Archive 1

Thank you for removing those recently added "facts", it looks like somebody is getting a little too eager to edit the Wegman's page. Since when are awarded employees a company fact? Or even usefull information for that matter, and do not belond here. Travisowens@hotmail.com 00:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

---

The critism part of this entry seems biased against Wegmans in an issue that has already been investigated, perhaps it should be toned down a bit, although not removed as it does provide some factual information. I have seen the pictures of the chicken farm and am also agree that there was animal abuse, but I think we can all agree WikiPedia is not a platform for launching political attacks and/or entries with a bias nature. TravisOwens@hotmail.com 8 August 2005 (EST)

Criticism section

It is my belief one way or the other that one minor (yes minor) event in the history of a 90 year old company should not be one of the largest parts of a article. In this way alone the section is biased. I'll give someone else a short (and I do mean short - Like hours) amount of time to tone it down, or I'll start looking at ways to do it myself. The fact it has not only stayed in the current state it is, but become worse over time is a disgrace to Wikipedia - Or at least if they want to claim their NPOV stance is at all legit.--Anthony 12:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but whether you like it or not, the controversy is big news. If you think other events in the history of the company are getting short shrift, however, then by all means add them or flesh them out.

Now, for an explanation of changes made to the 'Criticism' and and 'External Links' sections:

• added a mention (and reference) to the BBB ruling on advertising practices used by Wegmans. Relevance: the practices described as misleading by the BBB (and used by Wegmans, of their own admission) are largely the same practices portrayed in the documentary film.
• added a mention (and reference) to the Federal Trade Commission's agreement with the UEP to remove the logo, which resulted from the BBB's referral of the issue to the FTC.
• added a link to the film. Relevance: the film is at the center of the controversy!
• added a link to an analysis of Wegmans' responses to allegations of animal cruelty. Relevance: the page addresses much of the confusion regarding the farm that has been discussed here.
• The original article claimed that police investigated the Wegmans farm in response to the filmmakers' allegations. This is incorrect: the investigation took place before the filmmakers made their allegations; they did not request it. We can include this information, but it will make the Criticism section longer. Also, to place this information in context and satisfy NPOV we'll also need to include an explanation that there are no federal laws governing the welfare of chickens on the farm, and New York's statutes provide little or no protections. So the fact that no laws were broken really doesn't do anything to invalidate the filmmakers' claims. But if anyone wants to include this information, go right ahead.

Hoss Firooznia 01:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The entire acting like little kids really needs to stop. As far as big news - No. No it's not. The local newspaper in Rochester sure doesn't think it's a big deal, and when they do their reporting on all the trouble this group managed to get themselfs in. I find it very very very hard to believe in other newspaper in in other area cares. News? What world do you live in?

No one wants to deal with your trouble so be a good net citizen and just stop. Which doesn't mean I won't revert it everytime you add propaganda.

Please sign your comments, and don't make unfounded accusations. I gave a detailed explanation for the changes I made, along with citations and references. If you want to dispute these, go ahead. But please don't simply remove entire sections because you don't like them.

As to news: What you can or cannot believe is irrelevant. When the Humane Society of the United States, the Better Business Bureau, and the Federal Trade Commission get involved, then yes, that's news. The controversy has been covered in Rochester's newspaper of record, the Democrat and Chronicle, at least four times. Other papers covering the story include Buffalo News, the Finger Lakes Times, the Ithaca Times, the Wayne County Times, the Newark Courier Gazette, the Syracuse Post Standard, and the Syracuse New Times, not to mention college publications like the UR Campus Times, the Ithacan, the Minnesota Daily, and the RIT Reporter, industry publications like Grocery Headquarters, television (WHEC, WROC, WOKR and R-News in Rochester, WCAX and WWTI in Syracuse, DCTV in Washington, DC, WCAX in Vermont, etc.) and even radio (WHAM host Bob Lonsberry rants about the issue on occasion. :)

Hoss Firooznia 20:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that it matters but... The Humane Society has no bearing on what any person or company does with their animals. Their nothing more then a advocacy group (that also hands out pets to people that shouldn't have them, but we won't get into that). The BBB? I've already covered that. But I'll repeat myself. Wegmans is NOT a member of the BBB, and as such is NOT subject to their POV. The FTC? First of all that's news to me, however last time I checked the FTC deals with money - Money and public companies... And seeing as neither applies to Wegmans... Well I'll let you figure that one out...

The fact that something is "news to you" does not make it false. If you have evidence to cast doubt on any of the references, then produce it. Otherwise, please go waste someone else's time. What you think of organizations like the HSUS is irrelevant. Whether Wegmans is a member (i.e. provides funding for) the BBB is also irrelevant; see http://bbb.org/about/faq.asp#faq16. If anything, the fact that a pro-business group like the BBB has intervened not once, but twice, is exceptionally newsworthy. Finally, the FTC is the ultimate arbiter of consumer protection; if any organization's view is relevant here, it would be the FTC. If you don't understand what these groups do, then you should educate yourself instead of defacing Wikipedia.

Being covered by a news agency - Ya sure they all got their little piece in... Non of which had a "Wegmans is evil" outlook. As far as Mr. Lonsberry - I don't much care for the viewpoints of people that refuse to look at the otherside of ANY subject. Not very many other people do either. The people that do tend to agree with these type of people tend to be as ridiculous as the orginal person.

Again, your personal feelings about given media outlets are irrelevant. You claimed the allegations of animal cruelty were not covered by news outlets; you were wrong.

Once again I welcome you to take your blatent propaganda (ie twisted truths) elsewhere. If this was infact a true issue people (other then the ones that broke into the egg farm) would be facing (heavy) legal charges. Clearly that isn't the case.

If you have evidence to refute any claims made here, please do so. So far, you've been the one posting "blatent(sic) propaganda".

Hoss Firooznia 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I have seen the pictures and video as well, as well as seen the ACTUAL Wegmans chicken farm, and I can attest that the "documentary" is highly inaccurate, and most of the footage is not even from the Wegmans farm. The Wegmans farm is audited regularly by independant companies to ensure that it is up to code, and is always over and above the minimum requirements set forth by the government.

Great! Now then, anonymous person, who are you? Please support your claims. What in particular about the documentary do you believe is "highly inaccurate," and why should we believe you?

Hoss Firooznia 07:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm a member of the group that launched the criticisms about Wegmans Egg Farm. I agree that the section is biased and could be more concise. But I take offense to charges that our work is inaccurate. I took all of the egg farm footage in the "documentary," and I can assure you that I shot it all at Wegmans Egg Farm, sheds 11, 12, and 14. In much of the footage, we say on camera that we're at the farm, so there is no question we're documenting the conditions there. The standards that Wegmans follows are set by the United Egg Producers, an industry group; there are no goverment poultry welfare standards that I know of, even at slaughter (I wish there were!). We spent a year developing this project, making sure that we said nothing inaccurate or misleading in our film. I think we were very generous to Wegmans, at least, as generous as we could be. --AdamDurand 22:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I always thought it was a bad idea to talk about pending litigation - Especially when that pending litigation is against you. I guess I can't blame you though... You are getting off easy. Most companies would go after ever last bit of the punishment they could get. You should feel so lucky... But like I said you don't talk about pending litigation - As such I find it quite hard to believe you are who you claim to be. Anthony 23:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda

Propaganda - "Propaganda is a specific type of message presentation directly aimed at influencing the opinions of people, rather than to impartially provide information..."

If the criticism section of this article does not fit that description I don't know what does.

I know for a fact that Wikipedia does not allow propaganda. As I have made clear I have had it with this BS. If it does not stop right here and now I'll simply take it right up the ladder to someone who has the ability to flat out stop it. It's really that simple.--Anthony 19:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Anthony, but it seems that you don't understand how Wikipedia works. Just because you disagree with a point of view doesn't mean you have a right to delete it. Please see Wikipedia:Point_of_view. If you would like to dispute a particular claim, do so. If you would like to add references that provide different points of view, do so. But please, don't keep on deleting the additions of other people just because you don't like them, or because they're "news to you."

If you would like to request arbitration, go right ahead. But you're not going to receive support for enforcing your own POV to the exclusion of others.

Hoss Firooznia 20:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm far too new to this... Go right ahead and do whatever you feel needs to be done. Since afterall you know how. And since you can't possibly be wrong... It shouldn't be a issue right??--Anthony 22:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Editing etiquette

Andrew, what are you doing? You're deleting edits willy-nilly, without explanation or reason. You may disagree with the POV, but that is not a valid reason for blanking out the parts of the article.

I've done my best to cite and reference everything I've written here. This isn't propaganda; it's a description of criticism currently being levied against the Wegmans corporation. If you want to add information to refute anything that I've added, you're welcome to. If you think something should be deleted, you need to provide a good reason for doing so. But please, DO NOT just delete things because you don't like them.

First off how do you get "Andrew" from "Anthony"? Their not even close (Trust me - My best friend's name is Andrew). Second I'm not deleting edits "willy-nilly without explanation". I have made it quite clear why I have edited them.

It doesn't matter if I disagree with the POV. No POV belongs in Wikipedia. Yes it is propaganda. You are trying to make a egg farm that experts have called "one of the best in the country" out to be anything but. In other words you are trying to take what is a fact and making it into a lie. That's propaganda if you like it or not.

Once again I have not simply deleted things. I have left the majority of the "Wegmans is a horrible company" but made it less of "OMG this is so serious" because it's not. Like I said. One event in the history of a 90 year old company should not be the biggest part of a article. Let alone one that is highly disputed (Wegmans continues to deny the footage is even from their farm - And everyone that has the right to have a view on this says Wegmans is in the right and the group is in the wrong).

This is not my POV. This is the POV (and as far as I can tell the law) of professionals.

I honestly don't have a clue as to what else I can do. As such at this point I've pretty much gave up. I'm not going to request a mediator. Why? I'm not sure (Perhaps the same reason you won't). I WILL however discuss it...

Lets discuss this... Then once we come to a agreement (or don't) you can do whatever you want. I honestly do not see the harm in using my version until then. Like I said. It still points out your complaints, but not to the extent of painting the company as some evil empire. If it was my choice this wouldn't exist at all, but it's not. So lets just meet half way until we can settle this (I assure you I am a fair person).--Anthony 02:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you've made it clear why you've deleted edits, but your reason is not consistent with NPOV guidelines.

It doesn't matter if I disagree with the POV. No POV belongs in Wikipedia.

No. This is incorrect. Please, READ Wikipedia:Point_of_view. Controversial topics will necessarily involve points of view. Just because you don't agree with a POV doesn't give you cause to delete it.

You are trying to make a egg farm that experts have called "one of the best in the country" out to be anything but. In other words you are trying to take what is a fact and making it into a lie. That's propaganda if you like it or not.

No, I'm citing what critics of Wegmans have said and done, and I've provided references to back up every one of these. I never claimed Wegmans' egg farm is "anything but one of the best in the country"; that is your inference. In addition, the statement "Wegmans egg farm is one of the best in the country" isn't a fact; it's a claim. A fact would be, "Joe Schmoe said that 'Wegmans egg farm is one of the best in the country.'" There's a difference.

Once again I have not simply deleted things. I have left the majority of the "Wegmans is a horrible company" but made it less of "OMG this is so serious" because it's not.

Yes, you simply deleted things. You removed any reference of criticism that readers could actually check up on. You removed mention of the Better Business Bureau ruling because "Wegmans isn't a member," and you have yet to demonstrate why that observation is at all relevant. You removed mention of the FTC ruling. You removed links to detailed and heavily cited analysis of Wegmans claims about their egg farm. You even removed a simple statistic about Wegmans having an egg farm, with a reference to Wegmans' own website, for crying out loud.

Like I said. One event in the history of a 90 year old company should not be the biggest part of a article.

Again, if you want to provide other information, no one is stopping you. That doesn't give you a license to delete other people's contributions simply because you disagree with what you assume to be the POV.

Wegmans continues to deny the footage is even from their farm

Okay, then. So mention that in the article. Heck, I mentioned it, but you deleted it! NPOV is about providing both points of view, not deleting the ones you don't agree with.

If it was my choice this wouldn't exist at all, but it's not. So lets just meet half way until we can settle this

I'm sorry, but meeting "halfway" on Wikipedia means including both sides of the issue. You only want to include one.

Hoss Firooznia 03:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

You keep saying that it's my POV, and I'm only providing my POV. Well I think it's YOUR POV and ONLY your POV. I AM NOT removing it. Would you like to see it removed? Because I can remove it.

But hey. What can I expect from a radical advocacy group?

And another thing. Respect. Give it, and you will recieve it. Your not giving it by any extent. I am. No one thinks this should be here to the extent it is. I'm just willing to go out and fight the battle while everyone else sits back and watches. Trust me. People have expressed their concern, while you (and you alone with no support) have gone on your little rampage through the article.

I'm willing to bet no one has ever told you to behave. Well guess what? I'm going to even if you kick and scream the entire way. I'm no stranger to little kids acting out on the Internet. You don't scare, or even concern me.--Anthony 03:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, and try to keep your criticism constructive. Please note Wikipedia's basic guidelines, particularly "Be civil", "Don't revert good faith edits", and "No personal attacks". will.jennings 04:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, "respect" does not mean allowing you to simply delete points of view that you disagree with. Hoss Firooznia 04:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good. Here is hoping now that you have discovered this you will stop.--Anthony 04:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthony, why did you revert Will's edits without explanation? Hoss Firooznia 04:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)