Talk:Tyson Foods

message: Can someone go through this article and cite some more of the facts? I've done a couple, but this article really deserves a nice clean-up.  --  Zanimum 16:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like everything about Tysons, right up the the renewable energy section, has to be taken on faith - no references whatsoever. It sounds like it could be true, but some references are needed. Also there are a ton of red links in this article. I'll go through it when I have the time, but whoever posted this material should really document it or it reads like a prospectus for investors! I seem to recall a lot of references to Tysons regarding hiring of illegal immigrants, wage disputes, food recalls and other things that are completely missing. Zanimu, if you've got documentation for whatever, please add it - the facts don't change just cause you work there! Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: Although I do not dispute the fact that Tyson tends to encourage Christian values within its Corporate culture, I believe that the exact phrasing and tone of this section presents an extremely biased point of view. I'm not entirely sure if it is noteworthy to have this section included in the article at all; however, it is extremely important that whatever content is included should be written neutrally and factually. If it is found that the section cannot be written in a neutral voice showing little or no bias other than factual evidence, then that should be an indicator that the section does not belong here. --Antcjone 07:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like bald statement of fact to me so what point of view do you think is being pushed? I can't even tell if you think it is biased for or against. --Spondoolicks 09:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the wording used in that section gave me a very negative impression, as if it had been written by someone that was spiteful or resentful of what was going on, instead of reporting the facts neutrally. However, that is just my personal impression, and may not be a consensus, which is why I am discussing it before any actual editing goes on. Also, just for the record, the quote used in that section is not being used in context. It is being reported that Tyson made that statement, when it was actually an analyst that wrote it about all food companies needing to sell an ideology. Follow reference 7 for that section and read the article it links to; you will find the quote at the bottom. --Antcjone 19:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that last statement reads as an official Tyson quote but is actually some journalist's interpretation of a marketing strategy devised by a consultant (Faith Popcorn - surely that can't be a real name) for the company - i.e. way too indirect a source. I've removed that sentence as it pretty much counts as original research. Regarding bias, I still don't see it. Perhaps you could try formulating an alternative way of stating the facts in this section which you would feel more comfortable with so I could see what you mean. --Spondoolicks 10:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As it reads now I find the the presentation to be quite NPOV, actually.  There's no implication of coersion by the company that I can see and no presence of any 'weasel words', either and it's very well sourced.  An example of cut and dry editing, if you ask me.  :-) CanadianMist 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps with the quote removed it now reads a bit more neutral to me as well. I think it was just how the quote was written as compared to what I know aobut the company that hit me the wrong way. I am removing the POV tag.--Antcjone 17:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV in the Christian activism section

message: Although it is not a bad idea to have a link to YouTube for the PETA video, it needs to be edited to be listed as a correct reference, instead of being listed directly in the article. I do not know how to do this, which is why I am posting aobut it here. Thank you to whomever it was that added the information. It jsut needs to be formatted correctly. --Antcjone 17:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I turned the You Tube video into a reference.  I think that is what you mean, but not totally sure.  I also added an environmental record  section and tried to do some clean up on all of the citations.  --Mackabean 01:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a YouTube video a good enough source for the section and claims? Is there no real third-party, independent, verified article about Butler? --FeldBum (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Link Added to the PETA Section 

message: :Image:TysonLogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TysonLogo.png

message: It's a little bizarre that the history begins with Tyson selling chicken out of state. Was he born with these chickens? Did he already have a chicken farm? Was he a chicken middleman, selling someone else's chicken out of state? This history begins in the middle, reads a bit like an autobiography, and has a bit too much POV language. For example, "He realized that he could make more money..." supposes that he knew this in advance. He may have thought it, but it was not realized until he tried it. "he made another leap" - was he a leaper or a chicken salesman? Bsellers - can you go over this so it's more like history and less like something you'd find in a Tyson's ad. I appreciate that you found this info, and a history section makes sense, but it should be more "encyclopedic". thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Can anybody write a few lines on Tyson's trade relations with Russia? Recently, the company has been warned by the Russian Ministry of Agriculture regarding the quality of its poultry. I believe it had something to do with the GMOs, but I could be wrong. KNewman (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyson chickens and Russia

message: Why did you undo my edit...the article originally said:
Every week, its 54 chicken plants process 42.5 million chickens, their 13 beef plants process 170,938 cattle, and six pork plants process 347,891 pigs.
And I changed it to:
Every week, its 54 chicken plants kill 42.5 million chickens, their 13 beef plants kill 170,938 cattle, and six pork plants kill 347,891 pigs.
Im confused why that was edited out because the wording "process" sounds like a bad commerical.  When were talking about "processing" were actually talking about killing or slaughtering the animals.  Maybe slaughtering would be a better word.  
It's like saying the Jewish people at the concentration camps were "processed" that'd be rude to them.  The Nazis would probley say to people they were processing the Jewish people because it sounds a lot better than saying they were killing them.
RHM22 are you by any chance a Tyson employee? Tyson's website is also funny as it says absouluty nothing about where the meat actually comes from...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiimbil1239945 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not a Tyson employee, nor do I have any relation to the company (other than having purchased their products occasionally). The word "processing" can have several different meanings, besides simply slaughtering or killing animals. For instance, perhaps the chickens are killed somewhere and transported to the Tyson plant to be processed (cleaned and packaged). I understand where you're coming from, but you seem to be intentionally using words like "kill" and "slaughter" in order to impart a negative sound to the article. This is considered Point of view editing, or POV. Also, to me, comparing chickens and cows to Jews under the regime of Nazi Germany seems a little unnecessary and, perhaps, slightly rude to those who did lose their lives during that period of history. I'm sorry if I came off as rude or stubborn. That was really not my intention at all. I was simply trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy of neutral editing. Hopefully this will not sour your opinion on Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please leave me a message on my talk page.-RHM22 (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question to RHM22 

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNY4Fjsdft4 not certain on exact details surrounding this at the moment and am on my way to bed. 65.60.138.83 (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Video Depicting Animal Cruelty at Tyson Foods Supplier

message: Would someone please consider updating the financial data in the infobox based on the 2015 Annual Report? I formatted updates below in the way infobox updates would be for convenience/ease, but also happy to provide any further updates:
| revenue = 
| operating_income = 
| net_income = 
| assets = 
| equity = 
|num_employees = 113,000 }}
Thanks for any help! Rgoodman85 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: . Thank you for making my job easier! Altamel (talk) 04:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you! Really appreciate your help. Rgoodman85 (talk) 11:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Financial Updates

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Tyson Foods's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "NYT":
From Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States: 
From Kentucky Derby: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Tyson Foods]] 

message: Looks like there has been a little edit war in the lead over stuffing a bunch of recent negative information in. I feel like it does not belong there and is not an accurate summary of the company as a whole and as such does not belong. PackMecEng (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: More than half the body is devoted to controversies, with most of the space dedicated to scandals related to the company's damage to the environment, its history with animal abuse scandals, and its role in spreading COVID-19 and endangering employees during the coronavirus pandemic.  Furthermore, the only reason you reverted me and are here in the first place is because you stalked me as part of a WP:HARASS campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't get to double the size of the lead with POV pushing controversies like that. Do you have a proposal that might be a little more neutral to cover such content? Also yes this large campaign of one revert against you. Just like your second revert here was something to do with COI accounts. Please focus on content and not editors. PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The lead should summarize the body. After you showed up here just to spite me and revert me, it no longer does. More than half of the article is no longer covered in the lead. What exactly are the POV problems that you have with the article? Half the body is devoted to controversies, in particular those related to environmental damage, animal abuse and its role in the COVID-19 pandemic. It's role in the COVID-19 pandemic is substantial enough to have an enormous fork at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States, which if imported into this article in full would be larger than the non-"controversies" parts of this article combined. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That illistrates part of the problem with the COVID stuff. It is all breaking news without long term understanding or context. It is just an unfiltered news feed at the moment which leads to unencyclopedic writing like what was added to the lead. At the moment I would probably favor a much more generic overview that what was purposed. PackMecEng (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your complaint was that the lead violated NPOV (without explaining how). Now your complaint is that the lead covers something recent (even though the environmental controversies and animal abuse scandals are not recent). Please propose your alternative lead that would resolve your purported problems with NPOV and RECENT. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the recentism with COVID is a symptom of the larger POV issues. I was explaining why that is the case. The first place to start would be addressing the maintenance tag in the controversies section then we can sort out what should or should not be added to the lead. PackMecEng (talk) 05:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please explain what issues you have with the content in the controversies section. It looks alright to me. If anything, it's missing various controversies. You've literally never edited this article before, so I find your sudden concern with the body to be very puzzling. It's almost as if you just stalked me to a page you've never edited before, indiscriminately reverted me and then jumped on any and all reasons to justify your revert. But I'm very eager to see what substantive contributions you intend to make to this article now that you're here, and your evolving justifications for excluding the largest section in the article (covering more than 50%) from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they could use quite the pairing down and even elimination of several sections as not having much if any impact to the company as a whole or the standing of the company. For example the animal abuse section largely sources to a YouTube video. The forcing employee's to wear diapers in the employee abuse section could probably go. The COVID section could use a pairing down to the essentials. The price section uses primary sources for statements about the company. I could go on and on but it is just shoddy writing and not written for an encyclopedia. PackMecEng (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not see why reliably sourced content on employee abuse should be removed nor any big problems with the COVID-19 section (if anything, it should be expanded with recent updates and new comprehensive RS reporting). User:Cullen328 imported the COVID-19 section from the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States article, so his input on the COVID-19 section would be valuable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 05:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean if there is a whole Snopes article on it and no one really backing it up then it is probably undue. Yes others wrote that one place made the claim, that is not the same thing. You also failed to address any of the other points for some reason. Though of course this is just a quick once over of all the problems with the section, what did you find with your look? PackMecEng (talk) 05:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also find it puzzling that you have come out of the blue to push for the purging of sub-sections pertaining to allegations of animal abuse and employee abuse by the company, along with others in the controversy section, even though reliable sources back up the content (i.e., The Washington Post, United Press International, etc). For the record, I would find such a move objectionable.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

text:  The employee abuse is sourced to UPI and is from an Oxfam report. It's not only sourced to Snopes. As for your last comment, I have not had the time to comprehensively examine the body and the available alternative sourcing. Thank you for stalking me to this page and bringing all of these issues to my attention. I will certainly make sure to put in considerable time into beefing up this article, as well as finally get around to adding a lot of content to other articles which I've had in my to-do list for a long time but never got around to adding. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

text: My input is that meatpacking plants along with places like prisons and nursing homes have had severe problems with massive COVID-19 outbreaks, that Tyson is by far the largest American-owned meatpacking company, and their their coronavirus problems in 2020 have received heavy coverage in a very wide variety of reliable sources. I believe that the company's important role in the worst public health crisis in the last 100 years deserves mention in the lead section of this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed and to that end we are looking at how to do that and what should really be in the criticism section about it. While their response (or lack there of) is certainly noteworthy about the company I could see the section being tightened up and summarized more. We already have a pointer to the main article for that subject so the content here should be rather brief. PackMecEng (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Yeah I have still been looking. I like what you did with the workers rights section. The corona virus is still over sized since it already links to an umbrella article. So that needs to be  summarized to shorten it down. The environmental section needs cleanup to not read like a poorly written list article. Bullet points starting with dates like that and no context is never good encyclopedic writing. The animal abuse section it riddled with editorializing and POV from advocacy groups that needs pairing down. So yeah, some big problems with the controversies section. As always seems to be the case with those coat rack sections. PackMecEng (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNDUE POV editing in the lead. 

message: Should the lead include text noting that critics have criticized Tyson Foods for its:
# Environmental record?
# Handling of animal welfare?
# Role in and handling of the COVID-19 pandemic?
The text would summarize large parts of this section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good idea, per WP:CSECTION. —Granger (talk · contribs) 00:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Environment, animal welfare and COVID-19 in the lead? 

message: The lead says that tyson "annually exports the largest percentage of beef out of the United States." What does this mean? That it exports more beef than anyone else (ie is the largest US exporter of beef), or that it exports a greater percentage of its own beef produce than anyone else? At the moment the phrasing is almost meaningless.Pincrete (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest percentage of what? 

message: Hello! I'm Morgan, and I'm an employee of Tyson Foods. I've created an account to suggest some improvements for the company's Wikipedia article and related pages. I'm familiar with Wikipedia's Conflict of interest rules enough to know I should not make changes to articles myself, so I will share suggestions here and ask editors to review and update for me. I have two specific suggestions in mind:
1) The financial figures can be updated in the infobox per the Form 10-K for 2019. "2019" could also be added as the year for the stated number of employees.
2) The first 2 sentences in the "CEOs" section do not have sources. Could someone please add these to the article? They confirm the stated facts.
John W. Tyson, the founder, was CEO from 1935 until his death in 1967. Don Tyson served as the company's CEO and chairman from 1967 to 1991.
I hope these sources are helpful. Happy to answer questions, thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks for your help here! I've shared another request below, if you're willing to take another look. MW Tyson (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for financial figures and CEOs 

message: The lead contains the bolded part: 
It's a travesty to mislead readers into thinking Tyson Foods took precautions for the safety of its workers by vaguely saying that they [belatedly] hired staff to conduct testing after the company had failed to implement recommended precautions, been the source of multiple outbreaks, caused massive numbers of infections among staff, and had dozens of staff die. In no way whatsoever is it proper weight to mention that in the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is one of the most recent actions listed in the Coronvirus section. PackMecEng (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know, I was the one who added it to the body where it rightfully belongs. It's bonkers to add it to the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be something that is getting more traction in the media. Even recently Tyson was one of the places noted for NOT getting any citations. PackMecEng (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nothing would be notable about a company taking the most basic of precautions for its workers (and surrounding communities) unless it had severely failed to do so in the first place. That last link says that OSHA in Iowa investigated four Tyson plants and one non-Tyson plant, but did not issue a citation for the Tyson plants. It's unclear to me what you think this indicates. Do you want that in the lead too? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned above it is just RS talking about improvements at Tyson. No I do not think it belongs in the article at the moment. PackMecEng (talk) 03:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

text: No need to jump the gun. There is no time limit, we can wait for the RFC to end. PackMecEng (talk) 03:01, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need for you to rush to try and edit-war your proposed addition into the article, either.  You made a WP:BOLD addition to the lead, and multiple editors objected; the thing to do now is to go back to the prior version while you try and obtain consensus for the change you are suggesting. RFCs do not magically freeze contested changes in place, and to the extent that they do it is more normal to go to the stable version, which in this case would be prior to your edit. --Aquillion (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well luckily Snoog's started another RFC on the subject. So until the is finished the best course of action is to leave it. No need to rush or aggressively edit war as you have been doing. PackMecEng (talk) 03:07, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  It's plain there's no consensus for your addition from the discussion here; per WP:ONUS, you are the one who had to demonstrate consensus for your proposed change. --Aquillion (talk) 03:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Been there a month, it has implied consensus until the RFC finishes and shows that it does not. Onus has been fulfilled thankfully. PackMecEng (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in the lead for less than twenty days before Snooganssnoogans objected to it, and as I pointed out, that was only because you used a misleading edit summary to add it; twenty days is not nearly enough for something to have implicit consensus. --Aquillion (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is probably enough. PackMecEng (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fairly bizarre interpretation of policy which (regardless of the outcome of this dispute) we probably have to deal with at some point; while it varies depending on how heavily-trafficked the article is, the usual length of time I've seen people quote is around two or three months - faster on higher-traffic articles, slower on lower ones, because the idea is that the more people who have seen it and not objected to it, the more implicit consensus it has.  Claiming implicit consensus for an edit which had no discussion, a misleading edit summary, and was reverted four edits later is honestly a bit baffling, especially when discussions are currently trending something like seven-to-two against your position. It is absolutely not true that a contested addition automatically stays in place while an RFC runs, especially when it had no clear consensus prior and the RFC trends sharply against it. --Aquillion (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it is the most sources thing in the section at this point. The arguments made to remove are pretty weak given the sourcing and media attention. I should also remind you RFCs are not a head count, it is the strength of the argument. PackMecEng (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those sources support the idea that it is a major enough part of Tyson Foods' history for the lead.  And, regardless it's a new addition, so the WP:ONUS is on you to demonstrate consensus.  If you genuinely think that 20 days and four edits is enough for it to have consensus, please take this to WP:AN or some suitable venue - I find your position here shocking enough that I have to stand firm.  Twenty days on a barely-trafficked article is an absurdly short length of time, especially when your initial edit summary was misleading (meaning that anyone who only saw it on recent changes wouldn't have realized you were making a significant change to the lead, and decreasing the possibility that it has had any serious review.)  If you are truly confident that consensus backs your addition regardless, I am entirely willing to take this to some suitable noticeboard to see who is editing against consensus here - I think it's silly for such a small change, especially since it seems vanishingly unlikely that it will gain consensus to remain in the article, but it's something that needs to be hammered out if you are genuinely serious, in order to avoid similar problems on other articles. --Aquillion (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  False insinuations that Tyson looked after its workers in the COVID pandemic 

message: Hello again. User:PackMecEng, thanks again for helping above. I understand editors want to keep mention of the COVID-19 pandemic in this article. However, I see a significant portion of the text here is copied over from the Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States (see here). Much of the redundant text can be attributed to this edit on May 5, 2020. Specifically, these two articles both provide details about incidents in the following cities:
 
* Columbus Junction, Iowa
* Waterloo, Iowa
* Goodlettsville, Tennessee
* Camilla, Georgia
* Madison, Nebraska
* Lexington, Nebraska
* Dakota City, Nebraska
* Center, Texas
* Logansport, Indiana
* Wallula, Washington
* Dakota County, Nebraska
* Portland, Maine
* Perry, Iowa
* Springdale, Arkansas
I also see that the "impact" article has details about the lawsuit filed on June 25 as well as incidents in the following cities, which are not currently mentioned in the Tyson Foods article: Wiklesboro, North Carolina; Sherman, Texas; Noel, Missouri; Storm Lake, Iowa; and Council Bluffs, Iowa. The fact that editors have continued to update the "impact" article suggests the COVID-19 page may be the more appropriate place for details about Tyson in relation to the disease.
Are editors willing to remove the duplicate text in the Tyson Foods article? I would think the company article should just have a summary, while the details of specific incidents could be kept on the "impact" page. I accept editors will have the final say here but want to point out the redundancy. Thanks again for feedback and article updating on my behalf. MW Tyson (talk) 15:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not at all redundant to have similar information in two different but related articles, and this article should definitely have complete detail about the significant outbreaks in various Tyson facilities. I oppose the removal of any properly referenced content from this article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 15:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Pretty much correct. What should happen is the section here should be a summary of the important bits from the article the information was copy/pasted from, in this case Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the meat industry in the United States. Several people mentioned similar above in the RFC and previous discussions. If a main article exists for a topic, but that topic is relevant to a different article it should be summarized in that article. I think the section in this article can be reduced to about a paragraph of the most important bits and the rest left to the larger article. Since a main article exists is it a NPOV violation to give undue weight here. PackMecEng (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate COVID-19 details 

message: Next, I'd like to address a couple issues with the Undisclosed use of antibiotics section.
* The phrase "Tyson's use of protozoa-killing ionophores in unhatched eggs constituted antibiotic use" is not factually accurate. Ionophores are not used in eggs, they are used in feed to control coccidiosis. I think some rewording is needed here. I should note, the sentence "Ionophores are used to control cocidiosis, a parasite common in all birds and the medication is not used in human medicine" is accurate.
* The sentence "Tyson hid the use of this antibiotic from federal inspectors, with Tyson not denying the claim and stating that the use of this chemical is standard industry practice" is also not accurate. The NBC News source (#73) currently used as a citation verifies Tyson did not hide the use of gentamycin. It was an industry standard. At that time, organic birds – which, by default, were "ABF" could utilize baby chicks that had been given gentamycin within the first few days of life (there are no "organic" baby chick suppliers). We didn't deny the claim. Again, I ask editors to please reword the text here.
* Finally, I would consider calling the subsection something like "Antibiotic use". Keeping "Undisclosed" is unfair. While the situation that was mentioned was controversial, our current policy and procedures are not controversial, are transparent, and demonstrate positive progress in our attempt to reduce antimicrobial resistance.
Thanks again in advance for article updates or feedback. MW Tyson (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for raising these concerns. I've rewritten the subsection to more closely follow the source. I'd appreciate other editors' thoughts on whether or not the word "undisclosed" in the heading is appropriate based on the source. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Looks fine, I've added these with a slight adjustment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Antibiotic use

message: Hello again! Related to the above request, I propose adding the following text based on quality news sources to bring the article more up to date:
* In 2015, Tyson Foods announced plans to stop feeding chickens with antibiotics used in human medicine. In 2017, the company announced plans to stop using antibiotics on poultry for Tyson-branded chicken products such as breasts, nuggets, and wings.
 Since you helped above, would you be willing to review and update the article with this proposed text as well? MW Tyson (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine, I've added these with a slight adjustment. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested addition to antibiotic use section

message: I would like to revisit this section and continue work to achieve some balance.
Here are some recent rankings and notable ways the company has been recognized for environmental performance:
# In Newsweek 2017 "green ranking", an environmental performance assessment of the largest public companies, Tyson Foods ranked number 223 in the U.S. and number 312 in the world.
# In 2020, Tyson Foods received a SmartWay Excellence Award, presented by the Environmental Protection Agency to recognize "top shipping (retailers and manufacturers) and logistics company partners for superior environmental performance".
# Tyson Foods ranked number 29 in Newsweek "America's Most Responsible Companies 2021", scoring 86.1 out of 100. The company scored 84.2, 89.1, and 85.2 in the environmental, social, and corporate governance categories, respectively.
Additionally, here are some documented environmental performance results to consider adding:
# Tyson Foods reduced water use by 7.6 percent between October 2004 and 2009, and reduced wastewater related permit exceedances by 5.4 percent during 2007–2009. The company reduced landfill solid waste by 12.5 percent during 2008–2009.
# Tyson Foods reduced water use by 4.7 percent during 2011–2012. The company reduce water use by 10.9 percent between October 2004 and 2012. During 2010–2012, Tyson Foods reduced wastewater related permit exceedances by 48 percent and notices of violations by 86 percent.
# Tyson Foods reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 8 percent during 2010–2011. The company cut 145 million truck miles during 2011–2012 via lightweight equipment purchases, packaging improvements, and use of rail transport.
# Six of Tyson Foods' wastewater treatment facilities capture biogas via enclosed anaerobic lagoons, as of 2010. Four of the systems use the biogas as an alternative fuel to natural gas; during 2008–2009, the four facilities used 1.8 billion cubic feet of biogas, replacing 1.3 billion cubic feet of natural gas and saving the company approximately $9.1 million dollars.
# Tyson Foods decreased water usage by 2.96 percent during 2015–2018. The company's 2019 sustainability report shows a decrease of 6.8 percent since 2015 against a 12 percent goal by 2020.
I'd also like to share some notable partnerships to consider adding to the article:
# Tyson Foods worked with the World Resources Institute to set a goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions 30 percent by 2030. The plan was accepted by the Science Based Targets Initiative, a coalition of companies working to limit carbon emissions based on the goals of the Paris Agreement.
# Tyson Foods joined the United Nations Global Compact in 2019 and has goals similar to the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals.
# In 2019, Tyson Foods partnered with the Environmental Defense Fund to help farmers reduce nitrogen and erosion across 2 million acres of corn fields in the Midwestern United States and Pennsylvania.
I know a claim has already been added regarding the Environmental Defense Fund, but I wanted to share this proposed wording in case the added detail is helpful.
Can these be incorporated into the article to bring some balance? Thanks again for reviewing! MW Tyson (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added most of this information to the article. I'm a little confused about the 2019 sustainability report, as the 2.96 percent figure from the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette seems to contradict the primary source (which says 6.8 percent). Am I missing something, or are the sources just inconsistent on this? —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:   Thanks again for your help. The Sustainability Report is correct but I shared some other sources as well because I was not sure how much editors would prefer to rely on company reports vs. news articles. I certainly welcome use of the Sustainability Report for the most accurate and up to date information. Also, if you're willing to take a look, I've requested addition of some information re: land stewardship below. Thanks again! MW Tyson (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. Given the discrepancy I think it's fine to use the Sustainability Report for this information with in-text attribution. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for Environmental record section

message: Hello again! I'd like to share some claims and sources related to land stewardship for the environmental record section:
; Land stewardship and sustainable farming program
* This Wall Street Journal article, published in January 2020, says, "Tyson has enrolled about 400,000 acres of corn in its sustainable farming program with a goal to reach 2 million acres by the end of the year".
* Similarly, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Tyson plans to reduce greenhouse gases by 30% by 2030, improve land stewardship practices on 2 million acres of corn, and reduce water use this year. It also is working to identify deforestation risks across the company's supply chain."
Proposed addition: 
; Poultry litter
* In 2018, The Tahlequah Daily Press said, "According to Tyson: 'In 2004, Tyson Foods, along with four other poultry companies formed BMPs, a nonprofit focused on removing poultry litter out of nutrient surplus watersheds. To date, the group has helped to pay for the removal of more than one million tons of poultry litter out of the Illinois River Watershed.'"
* Also related to the Illinois River's watershed and BMPs, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Arkansas poultry farmers have been selling more poultry litter to farmers in other states, said Sheri Herron Scott, executive soil scientist for BMPs, a nonprofit that helps coordinate the sales. Since poultry companies started the nonprofit in 2004, more than 1 million tons of litter have been moved out of the watershed, according to Caroline Ahn, a spokesman for Tyson Foods."
Proposed addition: 
; Deforestation
* The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette said, "Tyson Foods Inc. is doubling down on its effort to curb deforestation. Earlier this year, the Springdale meat processor partnered with nonprofit Proforest and determined that about 94% of the land footprint of Tyson's suppliers had little risk of being linked to deforestation. To address the remaining 6%, Tyson said Thursday that it developed a Forest Protection Standard, a set of supplier guidelines to protect forests and other natural ecosystems. They will affect sourcing for beef and cattle, soy, palm oil and pulp, paper and packaging."
* Similarly, Drovers Magazine said, "Tyson Foods launches an initiative to reduce deforestation in its global supply chain. An announcement Thursday (Nov. 12) says the company will focus on four commodities – cattle and beef; soy; palm oil and pulp, paper and packaging. After a deforestation risk assessment performed earlier this year with Proforest, Tyson concluded that nearly 94% of its land footprint is at no to low risk of being associated with deforestation. To proactively address the remaining six percent that was found to be at risk, the Forest Protection Standard was developed to ensure the company is continuing to target the reduction of deforestation risk throughout the global supply chain... In order to support the Forest Protection Standard, Tyson is developing specific Commodity Action Plans to outline the work required in each commodity area to support deforestation free sourcing."
Proposed addition: 
 Thanks for your continued willingness to review requests, provide feedback, and update the article. I hope these will help bring some balance to the section. MW Tyson (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've added most of this information to the article, and some other details about the poultry litter situation. In the paragraph about deforestation, I haven't included the sentence about "Commodity Action Plans" because it strikes me as a less important administrative detail that doesn't need to be covered. But I'm open to being convinced otherwise. —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Land stewardship

message: Continuing work to address issues with the Controversies section, I'd like to focus on the Animal abuse subsection. 
First, I propose renaming "Animal abuse" to "Animal welfare", which I believe is more neutral and inclusive since there's content about animal care guidelines, etc. 
The information is not wrong, but this section does not mention many of the positive actions Tyson Foods has taken to address animal welfare concerns. Here are several articles that run the gamut of adding the Animal Welfare Specialists, starting Remote Video Auditing, starting FarmCheck, FarmCheck audits becoming certified, etc:
*https://www.thefarmersdaughterusa.com/tyson-foods-steps-animal-welfare-standards-new-initiatives/
*https://www.beefmagazine.com/animal-welfare/tyson-announces-farm-audits-animal-treatment
*https://www.feedstuffs.com/news/tysons-animal-welfare-audits-poultry-business-now-certified
*https://prairiecalifornian.com/tyson-foods-animal-welfare-initiative/
*https://www.greenbiz.com/article/tyson-foods-adopts-video-audits-monitor-animal-welfare
*https://www.pbcommercial.com/news/20200616/uspoultry-grant-funds-animal-welfare-research-for-tyson-ua
Can any of these be incorporated into the article to bring some balance?  You've helped with requests above so I'd like to put this on your radar, too. Again, my goal is to make the article more neutral and up to date, and eventually remove the warning banner re: lack of balance. Thanks, MW Tyson (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded the section with some of these sources. The Farmer's Daughter and Prairie Californian seem to be blogs, which may not be reliable. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:08, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal welfare section

message: Continuing work to address issues with the Controversies section, I'd now like to focus on the Price manipulation subsection. Following is the current text:
In 2016, Maplevale sued Tyson and others for alleged price fixing. In January 2018 Winn-Dixie Stores and its sister grocery, Bi-Lo Holdings, also sued Tyson and others; weeks later, Sysco and US Foods separately sued Tyson and others. Tyson and 16 other companies were accused of working together to restrict the supply of chickens and to manipulate chicken prices; these activities allegedly started in 2008. Expressing the magnitude of the Mapleville allegations, NBC News stated an American family of four spends an average of $1100 per year on chicken, and if industry-wide price fixing allegations are true, "about $330 of that should still be in your wallet each year".
In June 2020, it was announced that Tyson was cooperating with US Department of Justice in relation to price-fixing in the poultry industry. Tyson was cooperating under a leniency program whereby it would avoid criminal prosecution by providing aid to DOJ investigators. Just prior to the announcement, four poultry industry executives were indicted for price-fixing.
There are several issues with the section:
* In the first paragraph, "" is not particularly helpful, so I've changed to "" to clarify what is meant by "others". The next sentence is accurate but has not been updated to note the Northern District of Illinois consolidation, so I've updated the text appropriately.
* I also suggest adding mention of Tyson's denial and seek to remove the last sentence () Phrases like "if recent allegations ... are true" give weight to speculation. I'd like to think editors would agree that using verifiable facts is better and more neutral than providing readers with "if these allegations are true" claims. This should help address the "undue weight" tag.
* In the second paragraph, I've specified bid rigging as the form of price fixing and added the sentence, "Since that time, additional individuals in the poultry industry have been charged and one company has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $110 million fine." This should make the text a bit more accurate and up to date.
Following is updated text and sourcing for editor review:
In 2016, Maplevale sued Tyson and other poultry producers for alleged price fixing. Since the original filing, numerous other customers and consumers have filed similar lawsuits, all of which are consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The companies were accused of working together to restrict the supply of chickens and to manipulate chicken prices; these activities allegedly started in 2008. Tyson has steadfastly denied the allegations that it participated in any conspiracy to reduce chicken output and/or manipulate pricing indices.
In June 2020, it was announced that Tyson was cooperating with U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in relation to bid rigging conduct with respect to certain restaurant accounts. Tyson was cooperating under a leniency program whereby it would avoid criminal prosecution by providing aid to DOJ investigators. Just prior to the announcement, four poultry industry executives were indicted for conspiracy to engage in bid-rigging. Since that time, additional individuals in the poultry industry have been charged and one company has agreed to plead guilty and pay a $110 million fine.
 Thanks for your continued help here. Hoping you and other editors can review and update the article. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks mostly fine to me, thanks for suggesting the changes. I've added them to the article, with some adjustments to follow the sources more rigorously. I'm happy to discuss any of the parts I left out if you think they're important. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Price manipulation section

message: Thanks for your help above. Continuing with the Controversies section, I'd like to focus on the Workers' rights subsection. Here's the current text:
An Oxfam report issued in 2016 cited anonymous employees who stated they were routinely denied bathroom breaks, leading them to wear adult diapers to work. According to Celeste Monforton, professor of occupational health at George Washington University, on average, more than one Tyson Foods employee is injured and amputates a finger or limb per month.
In 2017, Tyson Foods announced that they would provide regularly scheduled bathroom breaks for employees, provide workers with training on workers' rights, and establish safety councils that involved workers. Tyson made the announcement in conjunction with Oxfam.
I've reviewed the citations and concluded the current text can be improved to provide a more accurate and balanced summary. Currently, the section starts with Oxfam, then jumps to Celeste Monforton, then revisits Oxfam. Also, the Celeste Monforton claim should be reworded to note the time frame being discussed (January to September 2015) so readers don't assume this average applies to the company's entire history.
I've drafted a more accurate and balanced summary of the sources already used as citations:
According to Celeste Monforton, professor of occupational health at George Washington University, 34 employees were injured at 10 meatpacking plants during January–September 2015, resulting in one amputation per month on average. Reporting on Monforton's findings in 2016, Buzzfeed News said Tyson Foods "recently launched new programs to improve workplace safety communication, awareness and education". An Oxfam report issued in 2016 cited anonymous employees who stated they were routinely denied bathroom breaks, leading them to wear adult diapers to work. In 2017, Tyson Foods announced plans to provide regularly scheduled bathroom breaks and training on workers' rights for employees, "give more attention to line speeds at plants", and establish safety councils that involved workers. Additionally, the company announced plans for "hiking wages, publicly sharing results of a third-party audit on worker conditions, increasing benefits to include more vacation and holidays, and expanding existing safety programs". The plans stem from compliance audits started in 2012 and an occupational safety and health pilot program established in 2015, and the announcement was made in conjunction with Oxfam America and United Food and Commercial Workers. By May 2018, hundreds of Tyson Foods workers at 27 plants had participated in the company's Upward Academy education program.
Again, my goals are to make the article more accurate and fair, and to hopefully address the banner in the Controversies section asking for balanced text. I'm hoping User:Mx. Granger and other editors can review and update the article on my behalf. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. I'll edit the article as suggested. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workers' rights 

message: Should the lead include a sentence saying that Tyson Foods "hired 200 nurses and administrative personnel to begin testing [for COVID-19] at all facilities"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , anything Covid related. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: No Coastside (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding your point that "the criticism is already in the lead". Maybe this poll wasn't very clear. I think the whole paragraph should be taken out of the lead and moved later in the article to a section on controversy. 's response above criticizes the whole second paragraph. And I agree with him.  This whole discussion of Covid response is recentism.Coastside (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Text suggesting that Tyson Foods took COVID-19 precautions 

message: * No. This is classic WP:UNDUE. Tyson Foods has faced considerable scrutiny for its failure to take COVID-19 precautions, putting its employees and surrounding communities at risk. Very belatedly, the company began to implement some rudimentary protective measures. Nothing would be notable about a company taking the most basic of precautions for its workers (and surrounding communities) unless it had severely failed to do so in the first place. To include this in the lead is WP:UNDUE and misleads readers into thinking the company took adequate precautions to deal with COVID-19. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , anything Covid related. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

text: No Coastside (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding your point that "the criticism is already in the lead". Maybe this poll wasn't very clear. I think the whole paragraph should be taken out of the lead and moved later in the article to a section on controversy. 's response above criticizes the whole second paragraph. And I agree with him.  This whole discussion of Covid response is recentism.Coastside (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *(This is in response to Aquillion's vote) It is more that so far that is the aspect of their COVID response that has gotten a large section of sources talking about it. When you say  please do consider the RS backing it up. False balance is also a red herring because that deals with minority viewpoints that do not get much coverage in RS, which again a number of high quality RS have dedicated whole articles to their response. Nothing undue here, in fact nothing could be further from the truth, if you look over the section in general the sources is not great for much of the claims (minus the one in question here oddly enough) so you are saying poor sources and a few "so and so said such and such in bumfuck no where" has more weight than several high quality sources? I think not my friend, I think not. PackMecEng (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Hi again! Right now the Use of antibiotics section has a 'citation needed' tag after "Tyson and the USDA compromised on rewording Tyson's slogan as "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans". This New York Times article and this Baltimore Sun article confirm the claim. Can someone please update the article on my behalf?  Since you helped with this section above, I'm putting this request on your radar. Thanks again, MW Tyson (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I've added the sources and some more information based on them. Unfortunately, as currently written the sequence of events is a little confusing (it seems a lot happened in May and June 2008), so I'd welcome any help making the section clearer and easier to follow. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks again for your help. I think the only suggestion I'd make is changing "a parasite common in all birds" to "a parasite common in poultry". I think that's more accurate but understand you and other editors make that call. I appreciate your continued assistance. MW Tyson (talk) 13:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked a few sources discussing coccidiosis and ionophores, and they do seem to focus on poultry. I couldn't find a source for the claim that it occurs in all birds. So I'll make this change as well. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations for unsourced claim 

message: Hello again! Pivoting from the controversies section for a moment, I wanted to identify some acquisitions not currently mentioned in the article.  I'm hoping you and others may be willing to update Acquisitions and investments section on my behalf:
* In April 2017, Tyson announced plans to acquire AdvancePierre Foods Holdings, a supplier of packaged sandwiches, for approximately $3.2 billion in cash.
* Tyson Foods agreed to acquire the organic chicken and chicken sausage brand Smart Chicken and parent company Tecumseh Poultry in mid 2018.
* The Philadelphia-based cheesesteak company Original Philly Holdings was sold to Tyson Foods in November 2017.
There are other missing acquisitions, but I don't want to give editors too much to review at once. Of course I'm also open to changes to the proposed wording, but I've tried to be brief and neutral based on quality news sources. Thanks! MW Tyson (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've added these acquisitions to the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing acquisitions 

message: Hello again! The "Cultured meat and over-population" section currently reads: "
This text is not quite right. The CNBC source says, "Tyson Ventures, the venture capital arm of Tyson Foods, has participated in Future Meat's seed and Series A funding rounds," and confirms the company's "stake in Memphis Meats, a U.S.-based competitor to Future Meat." The company has said, "The investment is an example of Tyson Foods' commitment to explore innovative, new ways of meeting growing global demand for protein.", which does not specifically say "overpopulation". The first citation is a student publication and the second is inaccessible (at least for me). I am not sure if BusinessGreen is appropriate for Wikipedia or not, but I can only view the first paragraph, which is about a sustainable protein coalition.
Text more representative of sourcing might look like the following, under the section title "Cultured meat and the global demand for protein":
: Tyson Foods Inc., the world's second largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork, was one of the first major food companies to fund cultured meat research in 2018 with their investment in California-based Memphis Meats. "Tyson Foods' commitment to explore innovative new ways of meeting growing global demand for protein" is the major motivating force behind their decision to pursue cultured meat.
I may seek to add some other claims about cultured meat, but for now I'm hoping to correct the current text.  Putting this request on your radar as well. Thanks for your help with the waste reduction request above and for restructuring the article. MW Tyson (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've edited the section based on those sources. The sources don't seem to say that Tyson was the first or one of the first major food companies to fund this research, so I've removed that claim for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I notice the investment in Memphis Meats is also covered in the "Acquisitions and investments" subsection. It probably doesn't make sense to cover it in two different places, so I'll combine them for now. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultured meat 

message: Hello! My name is Cheyenne and I work for Tyson Foods. I am taking over for User:MW Tyson as the company's representative on Wikipedia, and I've registered an account to suggest updates here on the Talk page for editor consideration. User:Mx. Granger, I've been briefed on work completed to date and understand you've reviewed several requests. I look forward to working with you and other editors to bring this page up to date.
I'd like to focus on the third paragraph of the "Profile" section. I propose adding to the end of the paragraph:
* In 2019, the company entered the plant protein category with their Raised & Rooted brand of plant based nuggets and tenders. In 2020, the company launched two plant-based patty breakfast sandwiches under its Jimmy Dean brand.
If this update is appropriate, then I suggest updating language in the paragraph's first sentence as well. I propose changing "The company makes a wide variety of animal-based and prepared products at its 123 food processing plants" to "The company makes a wide variety of animal-based, prepared foods and plant-based products at its 123 food processing plants" (adding mention of plant-based products). Hoping Mx. Granger and others can review and update appropriately.
Thanks! Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for suggesting this. I've added the information with some extra details. Because the word "plant-based" is often used to mean "vegan", I've replaced it with the word "vegetarian" to describe the products that contain eggs, to avoid confusion. But otherwise this is useful information, definitely worth including. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update to profile 

message: I'd like to propose additional corrections to the Profile section:
* I propose changing "" to "" to match the infobox
* I also propose changing "" to "", per the Sustainability Report
* There are also have very specific but unsourced statistics (""; ""), which I propose removing as well.
I think this section would be improved in other ways as well, but I'll pause here for now. Also, given the many improvements and updates made to this article, I think the banner at the top of the page which says "This article may lend undue weight to allegations of corporate misconduct without presenting unbiased reports in some cases" may no longer be needed. Thanks again for your continued help. Cheyenne at Tyson (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've implemented these suggestions and added updated figures for the number of animals slaughtered per week. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Profile update and banner 

message: — Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyson foods is the biggest meat packager and exporter in the world. With this being said, every industry contributes to climate change but at different levels. Tyson Foods though is a major player in the food industry which definitely leads them to have some affect on climate change. The article had a sustainability section which is pretty detailed up until 2020. Other than that, it doesn’t mention a ton of the other things that happen from Tyson, as they seem to have cleaned up most of their practices. Other than this one section on sustainability, the Tyson Foods Wikipedia doesn’t mention the word sustainability again. Although the events leading up to this are well documented, it seems to leave out major components of climate change and block it with the surface level sustainability news to show a change, when there really isn’t. They still mainly use corn and soybeans for feed which is major player in greenhouse gas emissions. They also don’t mention the pollution that would be caused by fertilizer and the fuel burned when transporting goods. The sources and evidence behind the research is strong as there are tons of different sources. The article was rated a C but I felt as though the in depth explanation for the climate change up until 2020. The sustainability portion of the wiki page is good but it is overall only one section. Maybe adding ore more in depth context on specific elements could be required for this as well. It is a good overall article but lacks the more in depth analysis of what Tyson Foods is really doing. 141.133.216.48 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: NAS 348 Global Climate Change