Talk:Chiquita/Archive 1

Archive 1

True or False?

An unregistered user, 160.39.130.224, added a sentence to the second graf saying the allegation were "prove(n) entirely false." That's not true. The Enquirer withdrew the series under legal pressure because their reporters hacked into the company voice-mail system. See the NY Times articles cited for how the truth of the articles was never addressed. PedanticallySpeaking 15:43, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

• I deleted the sentence this date. PedanticallySpeaking 16:39, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Also, maybe the article should mention the role Chiquita has in influencing the WTO trade disputes between the US and the EU in regards to treatment of ACP countries? Harkening back to its old UFC days....

"allowing cocaine to be brought to America on its ships" America - USA?

• False - there was an issue to Europe, but it is long gone. Cliffb 05:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

why no link to the Cincinnati story? it was easily found on google: http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/chiquita/ and what about the results? any official enquiry or indictments? this article needs filling out. the allegations would be part of the zeitgeist, but somehow banana polictics doesn't make front page, unlike oil or GM. TresRoque 08:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge there was never an official inquiry or indictment. The stories were retracted, and that was the end of it —Cliffb 09:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

protection money

I took out the words "right-wing". Payments were make to three groups, AUC, which is right-wing, FARC, which is left-wing, and ELN, which is also left wing..12.10.223.247 07:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Title of Section Three

Section three has gone through four different titles. In order they are:

1. Terrorist Ties (added by User:Doctor_Lyles_Carlton_III)
2. Protection Payments to Terrorists (changed by User:Cliffb)
3. Paramilitary funding controversy (changed by User:Haakon)
4. Protection Payments to Paramilitary Groups (changed by User:Cliffb)

In the interests of full disclosure, I used to work for Chiquita, and have been aware of this situation via news media reports/press releases for some time.

Deconstructing the titles:

1. Terrorist Ties - I think this is inaccurate, yes the company paid groups considered by the US government to be terrorists, but its not as if they were doing this freely and without a very pressing reason.
2. Protection Payments to Terrorists - I changed this, so I think it was accurate, however I think Haakon's next nPOV edit was about the word terrorists. Am I correct Haakon?
3. Paramilitary funding controversy - again I think this suffers from inaccuracies, the payments were made for a pressing reason.
4. Protection Payments to Paramilitary Groups, incorporates titles 2 and 3 together.

Have we reached NPOV here? I believe we have, but I given the situation I think its important that this be handled deliberately and with consensus. —Cliffb 03:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right that I found "terrorist" to be POV -- specifically, the point of view of the United States (and probably others). I also don't like "protection payments"; Chiquita says that's what they were, but we don't know what kind of pressure they were under, and we shouldn't make assumptions based on their word. It's indisputable that they funded the group, so I think we should go with this. Also, I think a word like "controversy" should be in the title, just for style's sake. However, I would like a third opinion on the title, so I didn't change your version aside from uncapitalising it, per the manual of style. Haakon 19:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. 3 works best. Doctor Lyles Carlton III 01:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

What's with this graphic?

The Protection payments to paramilitary groups section contains a graphic with the caption Chiquita politics in Colombia. To me, this graphic appears to be a piece of non-NPOV editor commentary and such should be removed from the article. If I'm wrong, can someone fill me in to why the graphic is there? - Walkiped ^{(T | C)} 19:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

8387% Profit Margin?

I'm interpreting the numbers in the info box to mean Chiquita had a 8387% profit margin last year. Is that right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emcee2k (talk • contribs) 23:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

repeated paragraph removed

On March 19, 2007, Chiquita Brands admitted in federal court that the subsidiary company (which was subsequently sold) paid Colombian terrorists to protect employees at its most profitable banana-growing operation. As part of a deal with prosecutors, the company pleaded guilty to one count of doing business with a terrorist organization. In exchange, the company will pay a $25-million fine and court documents will not reveal the identities of the group of senior executives who approved the illegal protection payments.

This paragraph says nearly the same thing as the paragraph before it. Okip (formerly Ikip) 10:40, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting information

I have deleted several paragraphs of the history of the United Fruit Company from the history section. While it is important to note the pre-history of Chiquita, is it unnecessary, in my opinion, to include details of the operations of UFCo or its scandals under the Chiquita article. I have tried to insure that links to relevant material under the United Fruit Company's entry have been added.Beepsie (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The article looks fairly unbalanced still. I think there is a hostile bias. This was no surprise, but I'd hope there was a little limit on different kinds of activists using WP as a PC consumer's black list. Nestle, Monsanto and other well known hate targets probably have the same bias. --91.152.66.251 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

European union

Maby someone can wrote in article that company was two times in banana cartels in European Union. Bot thimes company wasn`t punished becouse she gave informations to goverment of EU. There is reference on Serbian, maby someone can find on english.--Јованвб (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The below section has been copied to Talk:United Fruit Company#Merge with Chiquita Brands International. Please continue discussion there, not here. Jameshfisher (talk) 12:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The article lacks a clear history/time line of name changes from United Fruit to present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.8.167.216 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I support the merge proposal from United Fruit Company because Chiquita is the same company, with the same equipment and practices etc., it was merely renamed. User:Pedant 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Merge. It is Wikipedia's usual practice to follow a company through its name changes, rather than attempt to set up a separate entry for each name. See for example Altria Group. Bigturtle 00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't merge them. Many people know United Fruit as such and the bibliography on the company doesn't necessarilly mention Chiquita. Users can be re-directed to this page from the United Fruit page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[[User:70.64.14.124|70.64.14.124]] 03:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[User:130.126.235.225|130.126.235.225]] (talk • contribs) 14 August 2007.

• Merge per Bigturtle. Tazmaniacs 21:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I vote for a merge. When a user searches, or types the United Fruit Company they should redirected to Chiquita. The several names used by the company should be at the top of the article so that users aren't confused by the redirection. My reason to support it besides the Wikipedia practice, it is to give readers a full account of the story of the company. The company renamed in order to give a better image, but readers shouldn't be limited to know only that that the company wants to be known. /Lear 16 August 2007

• OPPOSE -- The United Fruit company played an extremely significant role in politics, diplomacy, and war up through the 1950's, and the importance of this would probably not be as clear if it were reduced to a capsulized subsection of the article "Chiquita Brands International" (which is not what the company was known as when it had near-monopoly economic power over the export earnings of several countries). AnonMoos 16:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

• Don't merge, When people search for United Fruit compagnie it give them the period when the company was playing it's wery important role in the country they were in. That make it a lot more clear. Also most book use United fruit company and almost never talk about the new Chaquita. The two name of the company represent two distinc period so they should not be together.
• Strong oppose merge - The extremely notable and historic United Fruit Company has a long and varied, often controversial, history dating back to the 1870s that is unique and independent from Chiquita Brands which is an evolved entity that didn't come into being until at least 1970. It's not a "name change" situation as Chequita Brands is the result of a merger between United Fruit and AMK to form United Brands Company and it was only later that Chiquita evolved from that. Almost everything in the United Fruit article would be off topic in the Chiquita one. For example, the "Banana massacre" of 1928 was United Fruit related, not Chiquita. Readers come to Wikipedia to learn about historic companies as well as current ones. The removal of the United Fruit article would make this encyclopedia a notch weaker. --Oakshade 03:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, and per unanimous opposition on the UFC page. Postlebury 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ChiquitaFyffes

Seems like it's time to start a new article about the merged company and history from this point forward. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

History of name changes

The United Nations Library on Transnational Corporations, Volume 15, Transnational Corporations: Market Structure and Industrial Performance, editors Claudio R. Frischtak and Richard S. Newfarmer, general editor John H. Dunning, London and New York: Routledge Publishing (published on behalf of the United Nations), 1994.

This book is saying United Fruit merged with AMK in 1970 and changed their name to United Brands. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Encyclopedia of White-Collar & Corporate Crime, edited by Lawrence M. Salinger, Ph.D., Thousand Oaks, California, U.S.A., London, UK, New Delhi, India: Sage Publications, 2005.

This more critical source is saying United Fruit began placing their blue Chiquita label on bananas in the early 1960s in the United States. This source is also saying United Fruit convinced the Eisenhower administration to sponsor a coup in Guatemala in 1954, that UFC had a very mixed record on economic development in some half dozen Latin American countries. And it also includes the information about the merger with AMK in 1970 and the name change to United Brands. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 20:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

---

http://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,910767,00.html

good ol' Time magazine from 1973. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)