Wikipedia

Talk:Pink slime/Archive 3

< Talk:Pink slime
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Agnosticaphid in topic GA Reassessment
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

History

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I tried to clean up the History section and provide better references but did not attempt to fix this glaring problem:

  • The product was approved in 2001
  • It was approved by JoAnne Smith
  • Smith left the USDA in 1993

Somebody needs to track down and clarify some facts here.

Sbs9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC).

Thank you for bringing this up. It seems that Jim Avila, ABC News, got it wrong. Is JoAnne Smith off the hook? CarsonsDad (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The citations themselves disagree.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, what does JoAnne Smith's income after she left the USDA have to do with LFTB? CarsonsDad (talk) 02:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I found several references saying early 90s, but no actual date or year. Mateinsixtynine (talk) 04:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Best spot on Good Article page

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I've listed this under food, but I see on the talk page that both projects food and agriculture have claimed this article. The stuff is put into food, but it seems to be somewhere in the middle of the food process chain, from agro to table. Should I put it in "Agriculture and farming" or in "Food?" Encycloshave (talk) 18:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you have it listed correctly. Most of the interest in the subject is from a food perspective. Mojoworker (talk) 21:51, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Food sounds good, although manufacturing or industry might be better if there is such a page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction ?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Quoting the article:

Pink slime is not permitted in Canada. In a statement, Health Canada stated that: "Ammonia is not permitted in Canada to be used in ground beef or meats during their production." Such products also may not be imported, as Canadian law requires that imported meat products meet the same standards and requirements as domestic meat.[16][17] Canada does allow Finely Textured Meat to be "used in the preparation of ground meat" and "identified as ground meat" under certain conditions.[18]

It seems to me the first and last sentences of this quote directly contradict each other. Wanderer57 (talk) 18:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink slime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Encycloshave (talk · contribs) 14:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:   overall, but a few  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  

Review Comments

  • Reliable sources:
    • "Seven Million Pounds of “Pink Slime” Beef Destined for National School Lunch Program" is a Yahoo blog, which which may not meet the standards of WP:IRS. What do we know of the editorial control and reliability of Yahoo writers? And what do we know about Sarah B. Weir?
    • A few bits are sourced from company-run sites, but most are duplicated by reliable news sources.
  • Neutrality: Neutrality issues raised on the talk page seem to have been addressed.
  • Stable: There seemed to have been some concerns in April, but they seem to have been addressed.

Cheers! Encycloshave (talk) 14:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

your right, i want to delete that whole section as canada does allow this substance as long as its not treated with ammonia/products - product for canadian market is treated with citric acid or similar process to acheive same outcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.172.255.251 (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Not if you read it carefully, as it saids under certain conditions"LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Biased mention of JoAnne Smith

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Quoting the article: "Smith left the USDA in 1993 and joined the board of directors of BPI's principal supplier, where she made at least $1.2 million over 17 years." That works out to $70,588 per year; hardly a scandalous amount of compensation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.251.12 (talk) 00:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I marked it for relevancy - it appears to bear no connection to the product, and serves mainly to tar a living person with the implicit claim of illegal acts. Collect (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with both of you and would like to see it removed. --MelanieN (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Actually, how about this: let's delete the last phrase about the salary, and just leave it saying "Smith left the USDA in 1993 and joined the board of directors of BPI's principal supplier." --MelanieN (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Being on a board of directors is usually not a job; although this particular source doesn't tell us what her day job was after leaving USDA, we'd likely find that she had a proper job and the BoD gig at BPI was extra. Whether the point about salary belongs is a reasonable question, but let's do it on the basis of a proper understanding -- it's not "salary". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:09, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
In short - insufficient value to this article, other than to make an implicit charge against a living person that in some way she obtained employment from misusing her government experience. Amd the fees paid to directors are earned income - why do you wish to somehow have Wikipedia reach any conclusion that it is not "salary"? Collect (talk) 11:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary on adding the irrel tag — " is getting a $70K / annum job actually relevant to this article?" — makes it plain that you thought this was her full-time job. I've helped you to see that this was a misunderstanding. Now, let's try to have a good discussion on the basis of a proper understanding. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the dollar figure from the sentence. I haven't seen anyone here argue for keeping it, and I agree with Collect that there are implied BLP issues with including it. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
I see no bias but a journalistic inquiry that presents information in an impartial manner than can lead the educated reader into deducing that corruption is rampant at the USDA without the sources outright saying it and one that is avoidant of BLP issues.LuciferWildCat (talk) 15:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The fact is that Wikipedia articles should absolutely never "induce" anyone into "deducing" anything - that is so absolutely contrary to WP:BLP as to be a self-rejecting argument. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous consensus regarding this article's title

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
  • Comment – Here are links to previous discussions regarding changing the article's title. The consensus in both discussions was for this article to remain titled as "Pink slime."
  • Here are links to related discussions:
It's important to also denote prior consensus regarding this matter. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that mass media continues to refer to the product as "pink slime." Examples include:
  • "Pink slime saga boosts beef exports". The Australian. June 19, 2012. Retrieved July 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Siefer, Ted (July 10, 2012). "School board votes to donate 'pink slime'". Union Leader (New Hampshire). Retrieved July 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Glen, Barb (June 22, 2012). "Lessons learned for Cargill in pink slime's 'ick' factor". The Western Producer. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
  • Rickerl, Stephen (July 15, 2012). "'Pink slime' additive doesn't cause outcry in local schools". The Southern Illinoisan. Retrieved July 18, 2012. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Wessler, Brett (June 25, 2012). "Former BPI employee plans lawsuit for pink slime frenzy". Drovers/CattleNetwork Magazine. Retrieved July 18, 2012.
Per WP:COMMONNAMES, part of Wikipedia's policy page for Article titles, it appears that the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
While I agree that the media has used this phrase for several months, that contrasts with the name the product was given and was distributed under for many years before this controversy blew up. In any case, the article naming policy is quite complex and has other factors to consider, and makes that clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I consider this a crusade and once the left winged agenda seeking activists are done quoting liberal mass media sources, I WILL see this articled named something NPOV that does not refer to a food product (that many STILL EAT) as slime. Previous conclusions regarding the name of this article were come to during a media frenzy and therefore inadmissible due to obvious POV. I guess there is still enough hype surrounding this to draw attention to the article.. Ill wait a few more months. Aperseghin (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like you're going to start a crusade. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
That reasoning is not necessarily correct. Despite the interpretation of WP:Commonnames used, Wikipedia does not use the colloquial title when more appropriate titles exist. A couple of examples, outside of government records, virtually all sources since the 2008 US presidential election season refer to what Wikipedia has titled the Gravina Island Bridge as the "Bridge to Nowhere". Yet, most rational people would agree that Wikipedia is using the correct title. The title "Bridge to Nowhere" has pejorative connotations and dozens of other bridges could be referred to as that title. Another such example is virtually every source covering Southern California topics, outside of official government sources, titles "the 405" for what is officially Interstate 405. Again, Wikipedia is correct to use the official title, for reasons that are obvious to most rational people. Not the least of which is Southern California is not the center of the universe and hundreds of other things on the planet could be legitimately referred to as "the 405".
Similar arguments could be made here, Pink Slime clearly has pejorative connotations, not used outside of areas where the media flea circus occurred, and prior to that time the official title was more common. It is also not unique, if you were to ask me for pink slime about this time last year, I would guess you were talking about silly putty or perhaps dishwashing soap.
With that said I don't a dog in this fight and could accept the article with its current title. However, to say a consensus was reached when only people who watchlisted this article (prior to the FA nomination) were aware of this debate is not an accurate statement. People who watchlisted this page were more likely to already have a strong opinion. Dave (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This has been re-listed for community evaluation at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Pink slime/1

GA Reassessment

Latest comment: 12 years ago54 comments8 people in discussion
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Pink slime/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

I don't believe this article meets all the good article criteria. I am not considering the issue of the article name - that is being discussed elsewhere. Areas I believe it currently fails:

  • 1(b)
  • The lead is not a summary of the article.
  • I don't believe it complies with the 'words to watch' section of the style guide. See in particular "Expressions of doubt" and "Synonyms for said". Examples:
  • "in an attempt to allay what they called "inaccurate information" that they claimed as having caused "an unnecessary panic among consumers.""
  • 2(b)
  • The article does not provide adequate citations for all key claims. Examples:
  • One of the very few facts relevant to outside the USA is that the product is banned in the UK. But the source is a Yahoo blogger. This major factual claim needs a serious source - for something this important, on a subject this controversial, i wouldn't accept anything less than a UK regulator's statement / regulation / directive, or a peer-reviewed article.
  • "The New York City Department of Education announced plans to phase out pink slime (following a letter from Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer urging the department to do so)" - what makes "The Gothamist" a reliable source?
  • No citation at all for two major para lead sentences: "In the United States, the additive itself cannot legally be sold directly to consumers.", and "Media reporting dramatically reduced its acceptance as an additive to ground beef, leading many retailers and wholesalers to stop using the product, or to label their meats "pink slime-free.""
  • 3
  • While I'm happy to hear other editors' views, it doesn't seem to me to have a worldwide view of the subject. It would be ok if the article was 2012 US pink slime controversy, but as a food product article, it doesn't seem adequate, and therefore not "broad in its coverage" (GA criterion 3).
  • 4
  • The article is biased. Examples: (some duplicated from my comments at the FAC):
  • "In fact by June 2012, forty-seven of fifty states declined to purchase any pink slime for the 2012–2013 school year while North Dakota, Nebraska, and Iowa chose to continue buying it." Listen carefully to the way the "in fact" at the start of that sentence is used to 'amp up' the sense of how important it is that the product has been rejected.
  • The next sentence, saying how the industry "have attempted to address public concern by citing what the meat industry describes as inaccuracies in the media accounts of how LFTB is produced". Note the use of "have attempted", clearly implying failure, and "what the industry describes as innacuracies", implying that they are not.
  • The article says "It has been described as "essentially scrap meat pieces compressed together and treated with an antibacterial agent."" That is true, but it is by a journalist from a second rate news outlet. In a controversy like this, it is always possible to search around for news media sources that are happy to sensationalise a story. In these cases, higher quality sources need to be used.
  • "In the U.S., beef can be labeled "100 percent ground beef" even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime". Note the use of "even if", which implies the claim is wrong. The FDA, if I understand it correctly, defines the product as beef, and it has certainly been ground (as well as pulped, gassed, mashed and god knows what else). And the allowance of labelling such as this example, exasperating though it is, is hardly confined to this product. I'm happy for lobby groups to say "even if it contains up to 15 percent pink slime" and more power to them - but not our article.
  • Zirnstein and Custer's opposition to the products approval (their argument that it is a "salvage product") is quoted twice at different points in the article.
  • "The pink slime stories were reported to have led to increased business in small neighborhood markets, as customers "don't want to eat 'lean finely textured beef.'"". First of all the sentence should say reported by whom. And if it did, it would be a salutary lesson in this article's bias. Because it was reported in the Concord Monitor. I had to look up Concord to find out where it was, and I still don't know because the US is filled with towns of that name. And the actual source of the claim? A guy who cuts meat behind the counter of a local store.
  • The article refers to "the pink slime affair". "Affair" is generally understood to be a term that connotes a scandal of some sort. And this is not. It is an article about a meat product, not a political scandal.
  • We are told the party affiliation of political representatives involved in the issue. This seems also to be POV as I cannot see why their party affiliation is relevant to an article about a food product. Their state of origin, yes, because it appears linked to food production etc, but not party.
  • "U.S. consumers have expressed concerns that ground beef which contains pink slime is not labeled as such, and that consumers are currently unable to make informed purchasing decisions due to this lack of product labeling." This wording would lead the reader to believe that there was some fairly authoritative source representing consumers that had put out a public statement, or something similar. In fact, the accurate wording would be something like "ABC news reported getting lots of calls from worried consumers after they ran a program which told them that they were secretly being fed "low-grade trimmings [that] come from the most contaminated parts of the cow". I've seen this kind of current affairs media tactic in action in other contexts, and it is no basis for claims in an encyclopedia.
  • Given the number of sources used for this article, it is concerning the choice of articles that have not been drawn upon - articles that are more neutral about the subject and which consider the debate to be over-rated, and concerns about the product to be misplaced. See for example:
  • Bloomberg piece The Sliming of Pink Slime's Creator
  • LA Times Pink slime perspective
  • Note from these and other sources that there is scepticism - or at least a sense of perspective - from public interest groups like Centre for Science in the Public Interest (though I'm yet to find fact sheets etc directly released by them).

Other minor issues:

  • "Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, called upon the USDA to institute mandatory labeling guidelines for ground beef sold in supermarkets, so consumers can make informed purchasing decisions." It isn't clear from this sentence that his call was actually linked to 'pink slime', but my main concern is that this isn't really that notable. I don't know what politics is like in the states, but in Australia, politicians go around saying stuff all the time. One politician saying something just isn't notable. If it were a congressional committee, a caucus, or a state legislature, that would be different.
  • Prose is supposed to be clear and concise (criterion 1(a)). There is repetition (one example listed above). Also, para two of body text says "Widespread public attention was drawn to the product in March 2012 by a series of reports at ABC News, which reported at that time that 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained the product." then para one of controversy section says "Public attention was drawn to the product in March 2012 by a series of reports at ABC News, which reported at that time that 70 percent of ground beef sold in U.S. supermarkets contained pink slime".
  • Citation 62 ("to our customers") - the cite doesn't tell us what company it is actually from.

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment – In the process of your assessment of the Pink slime article, perhaps consider being bold by also improving the article with editing, per your own suggestions at this very discussion you initiated. This would help to build the encyclopedia. Also, (prior to this nomination for reassessment), this article has already been nominated for featured article status, perhaps consider responding there.   Northamerica1000(talk) 13:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • (ec) In answer to your question, no, not to discount the nomination. It would have been regarded as bad form of me to have started a GAR and not said so at FAC. I review articles at FAC periodically. I've mostly been working on reviewing Istanbul, Maya Angelou and a couple of others that were recently promoted, for example. But I used to be a very regular GA reviewer. I was concerned, when I read Pink slime, that it didn't meet the GA criteria. I don't mind how it gets improved, and if it can meet both GA and FAC, that's fantastic, but i don't think it's close at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • In answer to your second version of the above post, re responding at FA - i have made comments there, but the issue would remain that, if it were not promoted at FAC, it would still be assessed as GA, and I don't think that is correct. But it is possible that editors will respond to the GAR issues and resolve them. I don't wish to prejudge that, though I think there is a lot of work going to be involved. Still, there are several editors active on the article, and your work is certainly prolific. Regards, hamiltonstone (talk) 13:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The "article" was made highly polemic at the end of March 2012, and toned down a bit after struggles with one or more editors. It retains a lot of the "let's bash this topic into the ground"-type wording, and if one looks at the redirects placed by a primary writer of this article, one gets the further impression that it was never meant to meet NPOV. (Soylent pink as one example.) The "aim" of the article is clear, and though the topic of LFTB was a "nine days wonder", the article fails to meet NPOV which is an absolute requirement for all articles. Collect (talk) 14:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Remember when he tried to introduce "pulverized cow anus" into the article as a synonym? --MelanieN (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Who are you specifically referring to? Northamerica1000(talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Let's try and stick to just the GAR on this page. Not you Northamerica i don't think. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone is right, I shouldn't have introduced personalities into this discussion. (Not NorthAmerica; the link makes it clear who I was talking about.) --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I have been watching this article for months, mainly to try to keep out the more hysterical of the anti-product edits that keep being made. (The main anti-product editor says that they are just trying to overcome a pro-product bias that used to exist in the article.) I did try for a while to improve the article, but eventually gave up except for watchful monitoring. This is not a Good Article at present, mainly due to persistent POV issues as noted above, as well as serious problems with style and sourcing. And even if it is deemed to be a Good Article at a particular point in time, I doubt if it would remain one for very long. As for Featured Article, when I saw that nomination I actually laughed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Per point 2b above, there are some key claims that are not sourced. Look, the references are great for an ordinary article, but a Good Article is not an ordinary article. The designation Good Article is not easily won. For the only Good Article I worked on, it was already in good shape when nominated, but it took a team of four of us three months to follow several rounds of detailed suggestions from the GA reviewer, before it was finally approved. I believe that is typical of the GA review process. The reviewer gives the article a really detailed, thorough analysis, and the reviewer's objections/suggestions are met - not by arguing with them, but by following them. It takes WORK to convert an article into a Good Article. I have never seen a GA review process like this one had - just "check, check, check, OK, good to go." --MelanieN (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Most, if not all of the concerns in the above review have been addressed/corrected as of the time of this post. I disagree with the characterization in point #4 above of the source "USDA defends 'pink slime,' calls filler safe." from Azfamily.com as "by a journalist from a second rate news outlet" in the above treatise. The source is copyrighted to KTVK, Inc., a subsidiary of Belo Corporation. Belo Corporation is a reliable source with editorial integrity. Point #3 of the above review seems to be a personal synthesis of Criteria #3 of Wikipedia's Good article criteria, because the article actually does adhere to the principles of addressing the main aspects of the topic while also staying focused on the topic, without going into unnecessary detail, per the actual GA criteria. Also, in the Overview section of the article, information about how this product relates to laws and food governance in the European Union, the United Kingdom and Canada is included. This serves to present a "globalized" view of the subject. Northamerica1000(talk) 02:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

As stated above this section, the article will never meed NPOV until it is properly named. I agree with everything in the assessment and im very happy to see the POV bits being removed. Aperseghin (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that mass media continues to refer to the product as "pink slime." Examples include:
Per WP:COMMONNAMES, part of Wikipedia's policy page for Article titles, the article's title is appropriate. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Here are links to previous discussions regarding changing the article's title. The consensus in both discussions was for this article to remain titled as "Pink slime."
—Northamerica1000(talk) 19:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • WHEN HAS MASS MEDIA been a reliable source.. BOTH those discussion happened during a time of SENSATIONALIZED by the MASS MEDIA. Im really getting tired of reading the "Mass media refers to it as this" and "the last discussions ended this way.." the point is that its POV PERIOD ! MASS MEDIA is not a source of reference or an expert in the subject. If you want to know what the correct name for a widget is you ask someone in the widget field, not a news reporter or internet blogger. You cane cite news stations and organizations until your blue in the face, mass media still calls the Higgs Boson a "God Particle".. Aperseghin (talk) 19:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I really wish semi-literate comments such as these and their creators would realize that we do things based on reliable sources and the newspapers, a medium will always be trusted here. The discussion did end that way and that was the community decision, this project is based on consensus. The Pro-PinkSlime zealots need to get off Wikipedia already, can we do a check user? I bet a lot of these edits are still coming from Des Moines (BPI) and Pennsylvania (API).LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Lucifer, please avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. Just because people are trying to make this article neutral does not make them "pro-pink slime zealots"; it makes them Wikipedians trying to defend the Five Pillars which include "neutral point of view" as well as "interacting with each other in a respectful and civil manner". --MelanieN (talk) 18:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • See WP:RS. Reliable sourcing is not a simple matter. It involves judgements, and those judgements do have to be carefully made when a topic is one of intense public controversy. Our policies are not an opportunity to be naive about how the media works. Outlets quote other outlets rather than do their own research - this causes errors to be repeated and multiple. Editors favour controversial stories to tame ones. This causes filtering of what facts are included, and encourages editors (and therefore sometimes journalists) to seek out an "angle". This then colours the story. Spokespeople are busy trying to put their spin on an issue, but then they get selectively quoted, which puts a different spin on the spin... and so it goes on. Newsmedia must be relied on in an intelligent way, and with great caution in cases such as the pink slim controversy. We don't rely on minor outlets that are contradicted by major outlets, and we don't rely on any of them if a better source is available. Etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Break for separate comments

I will be adding some other issues for the GAR and wanted to keep them separate from the above.

  • The structure of the article remains inadequate. The lead is still not a lead. It refers to alternative names for the product but these are not properly discussed in the body text of the article. It says "known officially in the meat processing industry as lean finely textured beef", but it is not only the industry that uses the term - it is also used by the USDA. This is both not a summary, and not accurate. The second para defines and describes the product. This does not appear to be a summary version of article body text - indeed the article body text lacks a coherent and comprehensive section on the product's definitino etc (see also below). The lead says "...allows the small amounts of lean beef to be separated from the fat...", but I can't find a reference in the body text to the fact that the amounts of lean beef are small. The third para of the lead is better, though the sentence "It gave a tour of its remaining plant to reporters and politicians." can be omitted as unimportant, as can the body text on the same subject (see below).
  • The first major section of the body text must describe the product. For GA it must do so thoroughly and with all major points traced to reliable sources. For FA (I note this only because of the FA nom) it must be done comprehensively. It isn't done to either level at present. Information about the product's definition, history, manufacturing processes, nutrition, distribution and use should be the main content of the article. The controversy about it cannot overshadow that key content (as it currently does).
  • Article structure has other issues. "Initial USDA response" is a two sentence sub-section. The second of the sentences isn't even structured as a sentence (it begins with "And").
  • There is no coherence to the flow of sections in at least one spot: "effect on the meat industry" is followed by "politician and media plant tour".
  • The section on the plant tour is generally unnecessary detail (one of the most obvious examples of WP:RECENTISM in the article, and contains a sentence that makes no sense: "Not all commentators accepted the new promotion".
  • The section "Abstention and product divestment" is far too long and goes into too much detail. Just to pre-empt one objection: this is not a complaint about total article length on WP; it is an indication that the detail is not of encyclopedic merit and it unbalances the article.
  • Ditto "In mass media". This is an article about a food product and no-one cares what a comedian came up with on some TV show. Delete it. Ditto AP review. The only reason such material should be kept is if it had a major bearing on policy and regulatory outcomes for the product. As such, I would rate the Jamie Oliver incident as the only one worthy of retention (though I accept I have not read all the sources), and it should be integrated into the account of the controversy's historical course, as his show was one of the key events that gave the opposition to the product its momentum. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Responses to the above critique

I removed one "source" as it happened to use Wikipedia as a source <g> which means it fails WP:RS at the start. I fear some other "sources" fall in the same category. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I deleted the Jon Stewart reference. I agree it does not belong here. --MelanieN (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The lede and overview sections have been revised, so that the lede summarizes the article and the overview section summarizes the overall topic. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The quoted information that was in the "Initial USDA response" section is a verbatim quote from the USDA Blog. It would be highly inappropriate to change its wording. This is how the USDA blog published the information. This information has been moved to the article's Overview section. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The order of sections in the Controversy section of the article is functional, and has a coherent flow. The subsection titled "Effect on the meat industry" refers to how the controversy affected various aspects of the meat industry, including BPI's decision that it would suspend operations at three of its four plants. The following subsection titled "Politician and media plant tour" has information about the tour that occurred after the suspension of operations at three out of four BPI plants, which occurred by and in-large due to the controversy. Quite well-ordered chronologically, actually. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Abstention and product divestment" section is actually relatively concise compared to the amount of reliable sources and topic-diversity in the sources that cover this matter. The section is well-organized by organization/company type (food manufacturers, grocery retailers, restaurants and public schools), and includes a short section about the effect that abstention and product divestment has had upon production of the product. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Part of the statement in the above critique regarding the "In mass media" section is subjective: "...no-one cares what a comedian came up with on some TV show." Wikipedia articles are based upon coverage in reliable sources. However, another user has removed information about Jon Stewart's bit about the product. I don't recall if this was covered by reliable sources, or just quoted from primary sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The article has been edited to address the concerns in the first point of the above critique, and more reliable sources have been added to verify information. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The plant tour has received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Due to this coverage, and to present an unbiased article that is comprehensive about the topic, this section enhances, rather than detracts from the article. The sentence "Not all commentators accepted the new promotion" has been removed, because the author of the article that the sentence was sourced to wasn't on the actual tour. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Question: Hamiltonstone, I have not seen you comment with regard to GA criterion #5, "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." In fact the main reason I Watchlist this article is to deal with the frequent disputed additions and conflicts over the material. Is this an issue in your opinion? --MelanieN (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

  • The article appears to have been rather stable for a while. In the past there were some disputes and differences of opinion about its content, but that appears to be in the past at this time. I've taken significant efforts to improve this article to a neutral point of view. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside the issue of the article's name, I don't think stability is a big enough issue to bar it from reaching GA, BUT neutrality has certainly been an issue that triggers the edit wars etc, and that is why I have concentrated on neutrality, structure and balance. If those issues are resolved I think it is less likely to trigger disputes. I think many of Northamerica's edits have indeed made some material more neutral, but the big picture issues are not being tackled, in my view. Northamerica and I look to be headed for a disagreement about these, which may result in this being taken to a Community GAR rather than the current individual one. But I'm biding time for now. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • This assessment ignores that many of the citations are NOT based on the text article linked to, but rather the ABC news video(s) also linked to in the same link, you must watch them and listen to them in order to corroborate the content. It would however be ideal to find the transcripts of the individuals newscasts as they are more durably archived and would not eventually necessitate the wayback machine.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Progress

I will provide more detailed comment later, but thought I should indicate that there has been substantive progress on the introductory structure of the article. The first section is now what it should be: a description of the product, and it appears to be more or less NPOV. Thank you Northamerica for the work there. The sections "controversy" and "abstention and product divestment" remain too long and contain too many individual details rather than distilling and presenting the most important features. This is perhaps mainly a form of recentism, or perhaps because editors have found themselves drafting 2012 pink slime controversy. Whatever the reason, it needs to be distilled and summarised more effectively. The good work done on the first section now makes me cautiously optimistic that the article can be fixed to retain its GA status. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, no progress lately. And I've just come across one of the most egregious POV problems in this article so far. The USA's main consumer body has issued a statement on the subject, effectively condemning the misinformation campaign against pink slime. This organisation is an absolutely critical player, and one of the most impartial - it works to protect consumers, yet is actually critical of the way pink slime has been treated. There is no reference to NCL's statement in the text at all. It is merely an EL at the bottom. This is one of the most important sources to be used for the entire section on controversy, and yet it has been left languishing. This article is not a GA and I will move in coming days to either delist or take to community GAR, following responses here. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of NCL as "the USA's main consumer body". The NCL is at best a minor player - one of dozens of consumer watchdog groups, some neutral, some POV - and it has no official standing. It is far less notable and influential than (for example) Consumers Union. It just another group chiming in, and while its comments should be summarized somewhere in the article, it is by no means an "absolutely critical player."
You may be right about it not being the main group; I was influenced by it being nationwide and the oldest, but I'm not American, so i don't have much to go on. But I'm not sure what you mean by it having "no official standing". I would have said that, by definition, all NGOs have "no official standing". hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
OK. I wasn't sure, from the tenor of your comments, whether you realized it was an NGO and not a government agency. Apologies. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
On the larger issue, I agree that this is not a Good Article, due to severe and persistent problems with POV, sources, and stability. You have labored over this, and NorthAmerica in particular has made a valiant effort, but I don't think it is there and IMO never will be. The original GA approval process was (to put it mildly) flawed. --MelanieN (talk) 14:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Agree both regarding GA status and the effort put in by NorthAmerica. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I think some of these concerns are a little bit off base.

For instance: One of the very few facts relevant to outside the USA is that the product is banned in the UK. But the source is a Yahoo blogger. This major factual claim needs a serious source - for something this important, on a subject this controversial, i wouldn't accept anything less than a UK regulator's statement / regulation / directive, or a peer-reviewed article. I'm really not a wikipedia expert. But it seems to me that if we referenced Home Office Directive 162.34(b)(3) (I just made that up, I'm not British) as a source for the banning of pink slime in the UK, that would violate the ban on WP:OR and/or WP:PRIMARY. It needs to be a secondary source, not a primary source. Certainly we should use the most reliable sources, and perhaps a Yahoo blogger isn't that. Still, primary sources aren't appropraite.
I understand your concern, and this is a big problem in Wikipedia's law articles, where editors cite court cases in support of text about what those court cases mean, which is a violation of WP:PRIMARY. However, just as it would be OK to cite the cases for the bare facts before the court, the words used in the judgements, the dates of judgements, the court that made the judgement etc, I think it would be best to cite the actual regulator statement or regulation involved. I was however presuming that the cited source would contain relevant words to be quoted; otherwise, there would also ideally be a reliable secondary source confirming that the effect of the statement / regulation is what the regulator claims it to be. That is why i referred to "peer-review article" in my post. Note incidentally that WP:PRIMARY does not prevent the use of primary sources - the important words are: "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". hamiltonstone (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Also, some time later, there was a comment that a certain sentence "isn't even structured as a sentence" because it began with the word "and." (As far as I can tell, the sentence isn't in the article any more.) Starting sentences with "and" is completely legitimate and often a good way to spice up a drab passage. There's no rule that sentences can't start with and. (You can read more about this issue here, if you want: http://www.accu-assist.com/grammar-tips-archive/11-07-06_GrammarTip_and-but-conjunctions.htm) And the way you wrote your comment, with such certainty, about a rule that doesn't exist, was a bit off-putting to me.
I've seldom seem a sentence in an encyclopedia article (as distinct from a novel or journalism) where beginning it with "And" works effectively. my remark was probably a bit forceful in the context. As it happens, the construction was used in the source document. So WP editors were accurately quoting a source. It still read poorly, in my view, and the author of the cited blog doesn't follow the suggestions in the style guide - she used that formulation twice in one para. If she had simply omitted the "and" it would have made more sense. But that isn't our problem :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any experience with Good Article reviews, and I also don't have any experience with this Pink Slime article, so whether this article meets those criteria is beyond me. But it does seem like it might be a good idea to get someone with such experience that's actually neutral or non-involved with the article content to review this reassessment, if anything is to come of it. AgnosticAphid talk 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm more than happy for others to contribute here. The fact that it is an individual assessment per the GAR guidelines doesn't prevent other editors providing views. But I would point out that I am neutral / non-involved: I had no involvement in, or knowledge of, this article prior to its nomination at FAC (since archived). I have participated in discussions since that time because of my interest in compliance with FA and GA guidelines. I will close this review at some point soon, and I'm sure anyone who disagrees will take that disagreement to GAR, triggering a community reassessment. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Closure

I am closing this as a delist. Issues with structure and balance of the article, outlined above, still remain, as do issues with reliability of sourcing and the uses to which the sources have been put. Early sections have been improved considerably, and I thank Northamerica for their work on the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I question your decision. In your final summary of "progress," you said you'd "provide a more detailed comment later," but you didn't, I don't think. Aside from your later displeasure over the failure to mention a minor NGO that you characterized as "the USA's main consumer body" -- with no source -- the only remaining issue I can see is that you think the controversy section is too long and not effectively "distilled or summarized." Considering the amount of controversy surrounding this article -- which you yourself have noted, as a reason to require extra-reputable sources -- I don't really think it's appropriate to close this less than 10 days after you posted your promised-to-be-but-not-expanded "progress" summary, as a delist, solely on the basis of your and MelanieN's opinions, particularly where as here it seems like you've got a pretty well established opinion about this article. While it's certainly true that more text was spilled here than in the initial GA review, it doesn't really seem to me like there's actually a consensus for this decision to delist merely because the criticism section isn't concise enough. But I know nothing about these sorts of reviews and doubt I could effectively launch an appeal of this decision. So, I guess I'll leave this here for posterity. AgnosticAphid talk 18:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
If you question the decision of an individual reassessment, the next step is to take it to a a community one. Unlike an individual one, it will be closed through consensus rather than by the initiator. AIRcorn (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of this. Thanks. AgnosticAphid talk 20:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Inappropriate closure by nominator

As the nominator for this GA reassessment, it was inappropriate for user:Hamiltonstone to also close this discussion and delist the article. Per Wikipedia:Good article reassessment:


Per the notes sections of the Good article reassessment page, section "Guidelines for closing a community reassessment discussion":

I have relisted the page as a Good article. Also, the article has been significantly improved to address concerns presented here. This discussion needs to be closed by an uninvolved editor. Northamerica1000(talk) 08:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

But it was an individual reassessment. The person who started the reassessment is supposed to close it. Like I said above, if you want to challenge it you can take it to a community one. AIRcorn (talk) 08:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, error! Thanks for the info. Struck my comment above. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article has been nominated to be a Wikipedia featured article.

—Northamerica1000(talk) 14:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OMG This again! (Renaming the article)

Latest comment: 12 years ago42 comments14 people in discussion

ok the first line of this article is "Pink slime is a nickname (though some argue that the term is pejorative) for the mechanically processed meat product officially known as lean finely textured beef (LFTB) "

If thats the case then this article is still misnamed. Now that the stupid media hype is over and nobody is talking about this stuff anymore, can we please name this article properly. We don't name articles after nicknames, we forward nicknames to actual names. Aperseghin (talk) 13:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed Our policies clearly state that we should use the common name - unless the common name is POV, and then we need to use something neutral. Rklawton (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think you need to read WP:NPOV a bit better. It has a section specifically devoted to naming, where it states, "If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased. For example, the widely used names "Boston massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment." SilverserenC 08:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    1. http://themoornewspaper.com/2012/05/negative-publicity-for-pink-slime-leads-to-removal/ http://digitaljournal.com/article/322329 http://fooddemocracynow.org/blog/2012/apr/9/pink_slime_versus_LFTB/ Now you prove that it does NOT have a negative connotation. @Luciferwildcat dont be so arrogant and left winged Aperseghin (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
No you still have to prove that the "term" has a negative connotation, we all know that the product has a bad rap and rightly so, it's literally frozen shit covered beef bits. Don't be such a judgemental you know what, and I'll have you know I am a registered republican. I just grew up on a farm and I know what food is and what industry is and we can't grow pink slime you have to make it in a factory with rotting low quality hides and gizzards and chemicals, open your eyes man.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Um -- perhaps you should read your own prose. And try reading WP:PIECE as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
" it's literally frozen shit covered beef bits." you opinion is noted and VERY POV. im just asking that re remove the POV so people can get information not opinions. Aperseghin (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
What the heck does that matter? Does it say that in the article? No. "get information not opinions" reaks of BPI propaganda to me. Pink slime is not a controversial term for pink slime. The product is controversial sure but that is why it is even of note in the first place. We don't sanitize articles here simply because the subject is controvertial. The public only refers to it as pink slime, the only people proposing LFTB are closely related to the company or beef industry and we are not their outlet for propaganda. We are a transparent unbias encyclopedia. And when I say it is shit covered I am not making it up. It is PROVEN in the article that this product is made with animal parts that are exposed to fecal matter. That is not an opinion.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Um -- each time you post you make the case against your position stronger. I think you should consider the results before making more such posts. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think each time you tell me to shut up you just encourage me to do the opposite. Funny how you can't seem to actually refute anything I say. Just personally attack my contributions to discussion. Nasty nasty.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok so first of all thanks for helping me make my point Luciferwildcat. In general the product is "Processed ground beef (or meat)" the term Pink Slime refers to a type of mold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pink_and_brown_slime_molds.jpg and until recently was not associated with LFBT at all. now if you need an example of the way this should work, try looking up God Particle you will see it goes to this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson because God Particle is what the puublic calls it bit the Higgs Boson is what the scientists call it. The media has made God particle a well known common name, but it too is a but POV as the particle (as far as we know at this point) has nothing to do with religion or God so please rename this article to something that makes sense and have Pink Slime redirect to it. Thank you Aperseghin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not a very good example. I'm not a scientist and I call it the Higgs boson. Though "God particle" is a nickname for it, "Higgs boson" is still the more common term. "Pink slime" is by far the most common term for this substance. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment – Regarding the article's title, note that virtually all of the sources refer to the product as "pink slime". Per WP:TITLE, an English Wikipedia policy, "Article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject by. There will often be two or more possible alternative titles for any given article; the choice between them is made by consensus." Consensus in the article's talk page archives was clearly for the article to remain titled as "pink slime." Furthermore, simply viewing the titles of the sources in the references section clearly confirms that this is the term that media refers to the product to. Upon reading the sources, this is further and very clearly confirmed. Northamerica1000(talk) 20:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - it's obvious to everyone without a POV pushing agenda that the word "slime" when used to describe a food product is derogatory. Arguing that it isn't is simply disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree with the OP. It is almost always better to discuss these things once the hype has died down. Don't know what the best name is, but "Pink Slime" is definitely non-neutral. AIRcorn (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that pink slime is POV, because of the derogatory connotation of "slime" in the context of food. Furthermore, given that it is shorter than alternative names, and is deliberately provocative, of course newspapers and news media would use "pink slime". To then refer to those sources as a reason to adopt the name on the grounds that it is the everyday term is to avoid the POV issue and the shock tactics. If one were to exclude all news media sources and sources opposed to the product's use, the picture of what name to use would probably be rather different. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • But excluding "all news media sources and sources opposed to the product's use" would be, in itself, a far more POV action than anything the title could be. SilverserenC 08:49, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
"Derogatory" sounds like lawyering to me, also stating that slime is derogatory is an unsourced personal viewpoint and is original research. your personal observations as to why the media and public prefer the term are more of the same. they also actually support the argument that it is in fact the common name for this. whether it is a shock term is subjective and depends on personal viewpoint, but the sources use pink slime, the NPOV thing to do is to follow the sources.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. I don't know about your home, but if I described food my girlfriend has just cooked me as slime I am pretty sure I will be lonely for at least the next few nights. AIRcorn (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename. While there may be POV issues with the name "pink slime", industry euphemisms such as "lean finely textured beef" are actually far more non-NPOV than pink slime. This is a product that has been banned by the UK and EU. Until/if a neutral name such as "Ammonia-treated separated beef trimmings" catches on, the article should remain at the commonly used name - Pink slime. 71.245.173.152 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The term may be preferred by the industry, but it is not an industry euphemism: it is the product name used by the USDA and its counterpart in Sth Dakota. Raising the claim of the product being banned somewhere in what is supposed to be a discussion about article title itself betrays a POV. Please provide genuinely reliable sources showing that this product (rather than meat products more generally) have been "banned" by the UK and the EU. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is an industry euphemism, it was invented by BPI and they named their invention then proposed it to the FDA and USDA and they accepted it. Just because the FDA for example approves (or uses) a new drug such as Zoloft, does not mean the FDA invented it. This comment reaks of beef industry PR worker! This product has been banned by the UK, Canada, and the EU. As are all similar shit-for-food products.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
LuciferWildcat, while I'm in full agreement of your position, I think you really, really need to stop it with the "there's shit in it!" argument. It makes you sound unbalanced and too personally involved, and it discredits our side of the argument.
Hamiltonstone, there are two sources in the article clearly stating that the product is banned in the UK and EU; please do not engage in obfuscation. 71.245.173.152 (talk) 03:09, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not the one obfuscating. Check those three (not two) sources. One is a blog and not a reliable source, let alone a reliable source for such a significant claim. The second is something called the "The Nyack Villager". This is not a credible source about what UK or EU food product policy is. It isn't even in the ballpark. This is a major claim about a controversial subject for which credible sources should easily be found if the claim is true. We are talking about current European food and agriculture policy. If we are relying on The Nyack Villager because we can't find anything better, then my conclusion would be that the claim is probably false, or it would otherwise be in all the reliable media.
Now, that leaves us with a single source: an article from The Independent. In the case of less conttroversial claims, that would generally be regarded as sufficient. In this case, we should be more careful. Furthermore, look at the exact sentence in the article. It begins "Not for nothing, they argue, has the stuff been banned in Europe,..." The "they, in this case, is "US foodies" who are opposed to this product. So it seems the journalist isn't game to themselves claim that the stuff has been banned in Europe. Instead, the sentence is constructed to pin this information on "US foodies". In other words, we have only one credible source, and this one is reporting that anti-pink slime campaigners have argued that it is banned in Europe. So what he have, in fact...is nothing. 71.245.173.152, if you have a rock-solid source from an EU or UK government agency publication on the status of pink slime or for a class of product that includes it, then please serve it up. Otherwise... hamiltonstone (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Good point about the Nyack Villager. But the Weir article clearly meets WP:NEWSBLOG. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
You may have a point about Weir. NEWSBLOG says "These may be acceptable as sources if the writers are professionals but should be used with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact checking process", and I'm not clear on either point. Do we have a source on her being professional, and do we know what fact checking is being applied? However, in any case, it just is not a good enough source for the strong claim involved - a claim that should be able to be verified from an authoritative source. But I concede it is possible that this blog in more general circumstances may clear the bar. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename per WP:COMMONNAME – The term "pink slime" continues to be the most commonly-used name for the product by news sources. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename per Northamerica1000 and Chaos5023. It is clear that pink slime is the common name and the most optimal for normal readers to find it by. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose rename Whether you think the name is pejorative or not, it has clearly become the common name and has remained as such. A simple Google News search can easily confirm this. SilverserenC 08:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Rename per WP:COMMONNAME The only people who ever use LTFB are either meat industry consultants and PR reps or official documents. "Pink Slime" is far and away the most common name. As per what was mentioned earlier, a name that is perhaps POV is still used in cases such as the Boston Massacre. Zaldax (talk) 19:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Still a problem with dates

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

The following are direct quotes from the article:

  • In 1994, in the wake of public health concerns over pathogenic E. coli in beef, Eldon Roth, founder of Beef Products Inc., began work on the "pH Enhancement System," which disinfects meat using ammonia.
  • Approval was ultimately granted by then-Under Secretary of Agriculture JoAnne Smith, who according to former USDA microbiologist Carl Custer stated "It's pink, therefore it's meat."
  • Smith left the USDA in 1993.

How could she have approved it, when the process wasn't even invented until after she had left the USDA?

Unless we can resolve this obvious discrepancy, I think all references to JoAnne Smith should be removed as unverified. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On further searching: In a Google News search I confirmed that she was appointed to her post in the USDA in 1989, but could not find out when she left. There are a ton of blogs and stuff that repeat the claim that she "pushed through" approval of the stuff, but they all seem to trace back to a single source, the same one we use in our article, namely ABC News. According to BPI's history timeline, the "pH enhancement system" (translation: ammonia treatment) that made it possible to use this product was approved in 2001. Based on this, I am going to add the date 2001 to the article, and I am going to delete all references to JoAnne Smith, who cannot possibly have approved the ammonia-treated product described in this article if she left in 1993. --MelanieN (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
More research: Her name does appear to be JoAnne Smith but she is often referred to in sources as Jo Ann Smith or JoAnn Smith.This FOIA request involves letters to Smith from the National Cattlemen's Association (which she used to head) in 1990. My hunch is that she may have pushed for approval of a previous version of this substance, a product known in 1990 as "fat-reduced beef", but that she had nothing to do with the later-invented and later-approved ammoniated product called "lean finely textured beef" or "boneless lean beef trimmings" which is the subject of this article. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
It was approved for human consumption in 2001 but approved for manufacture of oils and grade pet foods in the 1990s.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Overview

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Why is the overview of this article about media reports instead of being an overview of the product? Aperseghin (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The first two sentences for the Overview section begin with information about about media reports because:
  • ABC News provided the first reports about the product
  • Consumers learned about the product through mass media.
The rest of the section is an overview of the topic, not the article. An overview of the article is in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

This product has been around for a long time before ABC news brought attention to it.. its called NPOV read it Aperseghin (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the article where it's made very clear your product here was fit only for dog food and cooking oil before that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Aperseghin is correct. I have pointed out the problems with the lead / overview problem at the GAR, and they remain inappropriate. Lucifer, pull your head in, you are way out of line. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Ok there is another Pink SLime out there Lycogala epidendrum I believe we should add a disambiguation page Aperseghin (talk) 17:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

That is an unsourced statement, a google books search turned up nothing except a "pink pastelike slime" which is not quite the same. Nevertheless this rather obscure 'pink slime' would only merit a hatnote, not a disambiguation page. It seems like this is a backhanded attempt to corrupt policy into hiding the pink slime article from the public and I don't like it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Lucifer, please assume good faith. I agree with you that a DAB page is not needed but a hatnote should be added. --MelanieN (can't sign properly, using iPhone)
Hat note seems reasonable upon good faith.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


Aperseghin (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry the above link is regarding the NAME. it clearly states what i have been lobbying for.. change the name of this article, you can include the nickname all you want but for the sake of NPOV change the name Aperseghin (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) after reading and re-reading both NPOV and the article naming guidelines i have concluded that this issue (and im not letting it got) is still unresolved.. "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: 

   *Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
   *Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects to Nadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point #2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section of iPhone 4, which is in keeping with points #1 and #2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle, as is typing "9-11 hijackers", which redirects to the more aptly named Hijackers in the September 11 attacks."

-i say octomon is to pink slime what Nadya Suleman is to LFTB. there is no other argument that makes sense.. Aperseghin (talk) 20:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Everyone knows it by this name. Is there another name you really think will catch on? Doesn't the media usually just call it pink slime, and not mention its other name? Dream Focus 10:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    This discussion keeps on going, without pretty much anyone listening to the arguments. Aperseghin's point is that every news media outlet refers to "octomom", just as every news media outlet refers to "pink slime". The fact that a term is routinely used by media does not, in and of itself, end the discussion: "octomom" is a redirect and, if the arguments that were relevant in that case were also to apply to this case, then so should "pink slime" be a redirect. Repeating, over and over, "the media always use this term", does not provide an answer, as the renaming discussion above also shows. So. What does WP:NAME tell us? What should we be thinking about when considering whether or not to use the 'common name' (in this case, "pink slime")? Frequency of use is a factor, and certainly pink slime is used frequently. But there are other considerations. The policy says "Article titles should be neither vulgar nor pedantic." I would suggest that "slime" in this context is probably a vulgarism. The policy also says "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." We know that pink slime is used by some, if not all, major media outlets. But I am not aware of any international or national organisations referring to it as such (the highest-level organisational reference that has been drawn to my attention i think is the USDA and it does not use the term pink slime). Has anyone seen it referred to as pink slime by scientific bodies or journals? I don't believe so. So I don't think that particular piece of guidance is conclusive. The policy on the use of neutral names is relevant, and in particular the point "Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following: Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". "Pink slime" as a term in widespread use as far as I can see is less than 12 months old. If it was not for the controversy surrounding its use, the term would almost certainly not be used at all. And my own view, FWIW, is that is conclusive: the term should not be used as the title of the article. A term used by the USDA and other national authorities should be the title of the article. I would be delighted to see editors address these arguments, and stop repeating the mantra "the media use it", because that mantra gets us nowhere in seeking to fully address WP's naming policy. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I´d suggest that "lean finely trimmed beef" is pedantic, and pink slime is not a "vulgarism" in my view, not even close. I do believe I am addressing your arguments, ¿no? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Kind of. We are coming to a difficulty here, in that whether a term is pedantic or not, or vulgar or not, becomes somewhat a matter of personal view. But I would have thought the use of "slime" in the context of a food product is unquestionably vulgar, that is, "a colloquialism of an unpleasant action or unrefined character" (though I'm not sure I'd rely on WP for a definition :-)) I'm not at all enamoured of the technical term LFTB; I just think its neutrality trumps the vulgarity, POV and ephemeral nature of "pink slime". hamiltonstone (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Its been called it for years. In December of 2009 The New York Times published a story mentioning the term "Pink slime" was from a microbiologist that works for the U.S.D.A. who called it that in an email back in 2002. [1] Just look through Google news archive results for "pink slime" and "beef" by showing things only to a certain year. [2] The news media has called it "pink slime" at various times in 2009. "AP The maker of "pink slime" suspended operations Monday at all but one plant where the beef ingredient is made, acknowledging recent public uproar over the". This common name is going to stick. Dream Focus 11:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The term used by the beef industry and by the government is simple, consisting of very common words, hence is not "pedantic" at all. The "pink slime" dysphemism is moreover recent, not directly and simply referring to the beef product, and is deliberately so used per posts on this very talk page. Thus, it is not a proper title. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote to both articles to hopefully solve this issue. 12:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Aperseghin if you feel that strongly then take it to WP:Requested moves or Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
However given the discussion above it seems the community consenses is against. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 12:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


I dont care about what the consensus is, the pillars trump consensus. If everyone wants to drive 85 MPH that does not make it 'law abiding' and if everyone is of the OPINION that LFTB is horrible and wants to keep it named Pink Slime, that does not make it NPOV.. who can step in and resolve this matter. The people have spoken and are of a split opinion. There is one side that has an extremely clear agenda to keep the article very POV due to personal, political, or whatever reasons, and another side that just wants the article to stand on the 5 pillars. the former group has more members. i did not realize that we could vote on weather or not to abide by the laws. Aperseghin (talk) 16:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's NPOV if it's the common name. WP:POVTITLE. Read it, know it, live it. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Chaos, I have already addressed that argument in my post immediately above. Even if a name is common there are circumstances in which that still isn't enough, and my view is that this example meets those conditions. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Possible COI edits by Beef Products Inc.(BPI)

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

BPI is a processor of boneless lean beef trimmings aka pink slime. See 2 April 2012 edit request here and 15 June 2012 deletion without summary here (mostly sources). Link (geolocate) between IP and BPI here. Someone well across the issue may need to check that no 'good' text has been lost. Though, it seems User:SweetNightmares has possibly addressed the issue here - 220 of Borg 20:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

This page is being heavily watched (trust me i know) so i would not worry about it. Aperseghin (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I poked my nose in a little without taking a look at the history (rather early in the morning here). I was rather surprised to see an IP that could be traced so easily back to an involved party making a rather silly edit, one source of which would seem to have been in their favour: " This process is approved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration'". http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/health/healthy_living/'Pink-Slime'-debate%3A-What's-in-a-burger%3F. I had never heard of 'pink slime'/ lean finely textured beef /boneless lean beef trimmings (in Sydney Australia) till today. Regards - 220 of Borg 20:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

.

Why pink slime should be used as a redirect

Latest comment: 12 years ago16 comments4 people in discussion
   WP:RNEUTRAL

According to the above policy, Pink Slime would be perfect redirect to the actual name. Pink Slime is slightly POV which in the case of a redirect is completely ok (Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect.) and most importantly The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, this is exactly what the issue here is. Pink Slime is a a non neutral term used by sources (media) outside wikipedia and should be avoided. Any Questions?Aperseghin (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • i would also like to add this to your further reading on the subject
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42473.pdf
  • i think the stuff is just as weird and gross as everyone else. but facts are facts. and i still eat hot dogs.
Aperseghin (talk) 19:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are not any "facts" that are legitimate for dissemination as neutral vital information. All sources are sources used by an outside medium, there are no "Wikipedia" sources. This whole paragraph just shows a horrible disregard for transparency and is clearly IMHO an industry led propaganda attempt. I am sure you love hot dogs but that has nothing to do with pink slime at all. The common name is pink slime. This has been decided.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
@Luciferwildcat your opinion has been heavily noted. The industry name is not pink slime. Pink slime is POV and should be used as a redirect to the actual name. users typing in pink slime will reach the properly titled page. The congressional research service at CRS.GOV refers to the product by its proper name and addresses the pink slime issue in the pdf posted above. The bolded statements above are directly from WP:RNEUTRAL (not from me). The pillars of Wikipedia will be defended. Aperseghin (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
To address you other issues, I'm an IT professional working for a federal contract at an Army base, and I'm in no way affiliated with the beef industry. i could care less about the issue, i have no real point of view, only that this article does not meet Wikipedia NPOV standards.. Aperseghin (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Proof of industry common naming (not media naming)

http://steveking.house.gov/images/stories/LFTB_Letter_to_USDA.pdf
http://meatsafety.org/ht/d/sp/i/76540/pid/76540
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061103656.html
http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/newsroom/mcdonalds_statements_and_alerts/Discontinued_Use_of_Select_Lean_Beef_Trimmings.html

i can go on and on (and i will )Aperseghin (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  • [3]Lean_finely_textured_beef has been viewed 269 times in the last 30 days.
  • [4]Pink_slime has been viewed 44430 times in the last 30 days.
  • We know what people are searching for, and its not the term the industry wants to use. Dream Focus 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Dream focus, people searching for "pink slime" will find this article. That is not in itself relevant. It is not a question of what the "industry wants to use", it is a question of what national or international organisations, peer-reviewed journals and NPOV sources use, and a question of respect for the five pillars, and in particular, neutrality and authority in a name. The frequency of use by media outlets, as I have argued elsewhere above, is not a reliable measure in this case. Other aspects of article naming policy must also be considered.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
My point exactly. im not trying to wipe pink slime out of the vocabulary here, im just trying to abide by the rules and name this article Lean Finely Textured Beef Trimmings. Pink Slime would redirect here. the article would stay the same other then a few word changes in the lead and the replacement if Pink Slime with LFTBT where appropriate. the article is not that bad at all, just needs to be less 'bloggy' and more encyclopedic. this pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42473.pdf pretty much says it all. Aperseghin (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just adding to the evidence I already presented that this is the name most people know it by. Dream Focus 15:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I understand that MOST people know it by that name, but there are many times where the most well known name is not the title of the article because of POV or not being the industry name like
  • god particle
  • octomom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aperseghin (talk • contribs) 16:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
    Those are totally different issues. Google news archive search shows "Higgs boson" receives 2,360 results and "God particle" only receives 1,200, most of those with Higgs boson mentioned in them also. Nothing to do with this particular case. "Octomom" only gets 2370 results in a Google news archive search, while "Nadya Suleman" gets 4,230. Also, that's an actual person, and you wouldn't use someone's nickname instead of their real name unless it was something they used themselves. Totally unrelated here. Dream Focus 20:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Ok so i want you to attempt to make your argument without using news media, you cant, and therefore its moot and btw
octomom - About 9,550,000 results (first one is wikipedia)
Nadya Suleman - About 5,990,000 results (wiki is still first)

Thats complete search results not just news.. the news does not = everyone especially when talking about common names.Aperseghin (talk) 13:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I was focusing on reliable sources only. If you want to make a case about how many general Google hits something gets, "pink slime" gets 2,520,000 results and "lean finely textured beef" gets 425,000. And as I have said, the octomom situation is a totally different situation, since when a person is involved you used their real name unless there is a name or nickname they go by. Dream Focus 13:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

FInd me another example of any article on wikipedia where a common name with POV is used over an industry recognized name. its against what wikipedia stands for and i wont have it happen here. There is no argument. in ALL cases when OFFICIAL documents are concerned and INDUSTRY professionals are involved, the name is LFTB. in THE MEDIA its pink slime.. in the MEDIA its octomom and in REAL LIFE its Nadya Suleman. Its NAME IS LFTB, thats its REAL NAME so use its REAL NAME. you will not find an organization willing to refer to the substance as Pink Slime in public. we may all snicker and call it that behind its back, but its real name is what matters. Whats in a name? in this case everything. You would not know about the product if not for a name.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4588
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-04-01/pink-slime-lean-beef/53933770/1
http://adage.com/article/guest-columnists/a-pink-slime/234159/
http://mynorthwest.com/646/651216/Meet-the-man-who-called-it-pink-slime
http://iowaadguy.wordpress.com/2012/05/14/whats-in-a-name-everything-including-pink-slime/
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2012/04/are-lftb-or-pink-slime-safety-claims-meaningful-to-consumers/

Whats it called in those articles? Those are news media sites saying that the product is called LFTB. Pink Slime is now a 'nickname' not the official name. get over it, the controversy is over, even the media is correcting itself. please also cite your sources. th eresults of a google news archive search is not a very valid source for a decision Aperseghin (talk) 14:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Some news sources call it that, far more call it pink slime. What's your point? Why would I need to be posting links to random links here? Just post in the request for rename forum, wherever that is at, if you want to change it, and get more opinions on this. Arguing back and forth all day won't solve anything. Need more input. Dream Focus 14:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sentences regarding use as pet food / in cooking oil.

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

In the lead we have this: " It is a processed beef product that was originally approved for use in pet food and cooking oil." In the body text we have this (using a different reference): "Prior to the invention of the disinfection process, beef scraps could not be processed to reduce or remove the fat, bone fragments or other non-beef components and could only be sold for other uses, such as pet food or as an ingredient for cooking oil". I have several overlapping concerns. The cited source for the lead doesn't appear to actually say the product was "approved" for use in pet food. What it actually says is "Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler." So we don't know whether it was "approved" for those uses or not. Second, the sentence in the body text refers not to LFTB but to "beef scraps", which are not the same thing. Following up this discrepancy has given me a new concern. Here's the key sentence from ABC news Jim Avila's story: "“Pink slime” is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as a cheaper filler." Now here's the key sentence from newsnet5's Lorna Barrett's story: "Pink slime is beef trimmings. Once only used in dog food and cooking oil, the trimmings are now sprayed with ammonia so they are safe to eat and added to most ground beef as cheaper filler." Oh dear. They are plagiarising. And that means they are repeating each others factual errors too. Can someone please find a decent source that gives us accurate, regulator-sourced information about 1. whether there was an approval process for use in either pet food, cooking oil or both; 2. whether that was approval for actual LFTB or just for beef scraps of some sort and 3. I'd encourage editors to be a little more sceptical when dealing with online news sites, particularly on such a contentious issue as this, when there should be more reliable sources (feature stories by reputable journos with a track record; statements issued by regulators etc) available? Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't rely on regulator approved sources. Beef trimmings in those sources like the word he used after Jim Avalos is used just like a pronoun to refer to the most recent or prominent subject in said sentence or continuity. approved for human usage is not a leap its basic math, if it was only fit for dog food before but was now expanded to human chow it was clearly approved in the sense that it was sanctioned and established and acceptable practice, that is what approved means. beef scraps in those sources clearly means pink slime clearly means "LFTB". There is no need to be skeptical on that level with major news outlets whether they are mirrored online or not and the Jim Avalos reports are not "online" since you imply they are fringe or online only, the sources are actually television journalism. You don't set the bar to whatever you consider to be "reputable journos" with a "track record" nor exclusive statements issued by regulators. In fact we used reliable sources from independent third party sources such as regulators are not, editorial and opinion piece writers are not, not is the company itself nor its propaganda machine a reliable source for much of anything besides the official company story or rebuttal. You might think of scope as well as most regulators around the world do no consider pink slime safe and it is actually illegal, only in the USA is a limited amount of it legal.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, apart from the fact that your post is almost incomprehensible in places, I can at least respond to a few points.
  • If you don't think regulators are more reliable sources about their own regulations than a news report, then I don't know how I can help you. Maybe another editor can explain what seems completely obvious to me.
  • I didn't make any reference to "regulator approved" sources. The regulator IS the most reliable source about regulations.
  • I think you missed my point about "beef scraps" which is that at least the source that I examined did not use the term "beef scraps" at all. It only referred to pink slime.
  • "Approved" in this WP article has a clear meaning: approved by an administrative process. See for example the phrase in the current article (referring to the USDA) "...has stated that it plans on approving this practice..."
  • I have no idea why you are referring to a news outlet being "mirrored". We are not dealing with a mirror site, we are dealing with plagiarism: each story is attributed to a different individual reporter, but the words are identical, and there is no acknowledgement of sources. Surely you are familiar with the meaning of plagiarism, from our own policies etc at WP?
  • "Television journalism" can be good or it can be crap. That is my point. WP:RS talks about taking an intelligent approach to sources and to data. If there are problems with the content of reports (as in this case), we are expected to tackle those problems, not say "it was on the ABC, it must be OK". The fact that a certain type of source is OK in general does not necessarily make particular claims made by a piece from one of those sources OK: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context." (WP:RS)
  • Finally, at the end you say "most regulators around the world do no consider pink slime safe and it is actually illegal". I don't know that LFTB's safety has been tested by any regulators around the world that I am aware of. I think the Canadian regulations prohibit it because of a substance used in the processing, and not based on any assessment of this particular product's safety. I don't believe we have sources for any other jurisdiction as to the reasons this product is or is not allowed. Outside Europe (or even within Europe), I don't think I've seen evidence that applications have even been made to regulators seeking approval. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
What you mean by approved and what the word means are different and the actual definition is what will always win. Your tangent is also incomprehensible because now in order to promote the company you are willing to question major media outlets and now are claiming some sort of plagiarism. But even if they all copied and pasted from one another or quoted the same sources which leads to similarly written articles that does not mean they stop being reliable sources. A mirror means a place where it is reproduced. You earlier questioned all internet sources in a broad generalization (forgive the redundancy although that is a hyperpolistic collocation if you can comprehend that) but it does not matter if it is online or in print or on transcript, just that it is reliable. Criticism of the USDA cannot be sourced to the USDA it is an agency not a newsource, it may be a reliable source for some items about itself but not for criticism due to the inherent bias. This product is dangerous and hazardous to people's health, it has been recalled numerous times and it's mishaps with editing the levels of ammonia used in it have led to its natural e. coli levels to multiply higher than usual without disinfection which is a public health danger, so cut the company bullshit.LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: This product is dangerous and hazardous to people's health, it has been recalled numerous times. Lucifer, I realize that facts are not your strong point, but I don't believe this product has EVER been recalled - which means recalled to the factory after being publicly released for sale. I also don't believe it has ever been declared unsafe or hazardous by any public health agency, or that any incidents of disease have been traced to it. I realize you hate this product with a fury, but try to limit yourself to accusations that are verifiably true. --MelanieN (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hamiltonstone, I sympathize with and admire your efforts to bring this article into some kind of encyclopedic form. Thank you for trying. Speaking for myself: been there, done that, gave up. This is why I have contended this article is not worthy of the designation "Good Article" and probably never will be. --MelanieN (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm done with reasoning with you Lucifer. You aren't listening to what I'm saying, you claim I've said things that I haven't, you aren't reading WP's policies, you are making personal attacks, and making claims about the product that are your POV. I won't respond further to your posts. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Who calls it "pink slime"?

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

No, this is not a rehash of the above discussions, I promise. The article currently has the following sentence: "People in the beef industry have referred to the additive as "pink slime" due to the appearance of the product as viscous in its unfrozen form and pinkish in coloration". The source is a POV book on the food industry. More to the point, the book cites absolutely no sources for this claim that it makes. I am not aware that anyone in the industry refers to the additive by this name. USDA employee(s) used the term privately and informally (that has since become public), but the USDA is not "industry", it is the regulator. I suggest the sentence be revised to read "The additive is sometimes referred to as "pink slime" due to the appearance of the product as viscous in its unfrozen form and pinkish in coloration.", followed by some reliable press sources that actually say why it is called this. I have no problem with the origin of the term being explained in the article, but the attribution of it to the industry by an unsourced anti-industry publication does not represent reliable sourcing. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It really seems like it is. NPOV means to not used unsourced statements. A book about the meat industry is a reliable source. Therefore the statement is not a POV issue. We should be compelled to explain why it is called pink slime. It is not a strech but this is an encyclopedia so we do source the item in question. If you have a problem with the book write a letter to the editor. What you are "aware" of or "not" and I believe it is largely not is irrelevant since it is original research and is part of what Wikipedia is Wikipedia:NOT. The USDA is part of the meat industry for several reasons, it deals with them and most employees play an integral role working for, or have or will work for the industry. The USDA is not very independent of the meat industry at all in this country. The sometimes is not needed. If it is referred to this way at all and it usually is then "is" represents that it occurs. There is a plethora of sources that is "is" referred to as pink slime. Books don't have to follow wikipedia guidelines for article content, just like wikipedia does not have to follow the offical story of pink slime used by BPI or the USDA. Is it an anti-industry publication? Is ABC News anti industry because you don't like the full disclosure and exposure they have given your slime?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Where to start? You say "NPOV means to not used unsourced statements". No it doesn't. It means "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources" (WP:NPOV). You may have been thinking of the policy in verifiability, but that doesn't stand on its own: having a citation doesn't somehow exonerate us from responsibility for verifiability. And as the verifiability pillar states, "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Suggesting that the industry uses this term, when the patents and the industry's journals refer to something else, is an exceptional claim. And the sinle cited source is anything but exceptional. Next, you are not reading the full meaning and intent of WP:RS. All editors - you, me, whoever, are supposed to look at and analyse the reliability of the sources in the context in which they are used. An anti-industry publication which fails to cite sources for what it claims the industry says, is not a reliable source if we cannot identify industry sources that are consistent with that claim. You don't seem to get the fundamental issue here: the fact that a source might clear the bar for being reliable in general does not make it a reliable source per WP:RS. There is a lot more to WP:RS than that. Next, having just told me I'm expressing an opinion about the book (and therefore my argument is invalid), you then proceed to lecture me with your opinions about the USDA. The USDA is part of government. It is the regulator. It is not the "industry". It is simply the incorrect word to describe it. Again, I have no issue with including information based on reliable sources that might analyse the regulator's actions. But that doesn't mean you can call it "industry". It simply isn't. Yes there are sources that refer to the product as "pink slime". Did you even read what I posted? I said 'I suggest the sentence be revised to read "The additive is sometimes referred to as "pink slime" due to the appearance of the product as viscous in its unfrozen form and pinkish in coloration.", followed by some reliable press sources that actually say why it is called this. I have no problem with the origin of the term being explained in the article,...' There are media sources that will allow this statement to be included in the WP article and I have no problem with that. And finally, you just can't help including a personal attack, can you? The slime is not "my" slime. Have you read my user page? Have you read Collect's user page? Have you noticed a pattern here? We are uninvolved editors who have been assisting at WP for years. I can't speak for Collect, but I don't even live in the US. I care about Wikipedia and that it doesn't serve up rubbish dressed up with media quotes. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

How to style percentages

Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments6 people in discussion

A ridiculous edit war has just broken out over whether to write percentages as "70 percent" or "seventy percent" or "70%". All three formats are perfectly acceptable formats according to WP:MOS#Numbers, which says "In general, write whole numbers from one to nine as words, write other numbers that take two words or fewer to say as either figures or words, and write all other numbers as figures." It also says "Write 3% or three percent, but not 3 % (with a space) or three %" and "(The word) percent (American English) or per cent (British English) is commonly used to indicate percentages in the body of an article. The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings."

The style of this article has been "70 percent" for a long stable time and is perfectly within guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers, when an article's existing style is compatible with style guidelines and has been stable for a long time, we are NOT to change it to another style unless there is a good reason. To quote the guideline, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable."

I am going to revert all usages to the "70 percent" format. And if there are any further changes or disputes over this, I am going to consider reporting the user for edit warring. Let's concentrate on improving the article and the rest of Wikipedia instead of battling over trifles - especially when such a battle is expressly considered "unacceptable". --MelanieN (talk) 02:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop threatening others if you don't get your way. If you disagree with something, you state why you think it should be a certain way, and let others state their opinions. I believe it looks rather stupid to write out the word "percentage" but not the number. 70% or seventy percent, not some halfway between. Its easier to read as 70% though, so no reason not to have that. Lets get more opinions on this. Dream Focus 02:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I have already stated "why I think it should be a certain way," namely stability of an existing format that meets Wikipedia guidelines, and I have quoted Wikipedia policy. You have offered only your opinion, in other words your "mere choice of style" per the above quote (and it appears to be contradicted by the section in my first paragraph that I just bolded). The "threat" as you call it does not come from me, it comes from the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. We can discuss it here, but Wikipedia policy clearly states that we should not get into edit wars within the article. --MelanieN (talk) 02:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That "stability" is not policy and is also bullshit, you are wrong, a few months back I changed the style from 70% to 70 percent during one of my copyediting marathons, and policy expressly states that the standard that happens to be chosen should be the original one not the one that Melanie claims is "stable" arbitrarily. You are the one that is edit warring if you are so concerned about what others "should" be doing why don't you butt out and go do that instead of preaching to those of us that don't want to be proselytized by your brand of blah?LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You are misquoting things from various parts of that guideline page. Only what it says in WP:PERCENT is relevant to percentages. It doesn't say anything about using numbers and words together. It says at the top "If discussion cannot determine which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." What was the first one used? Anyone did through the history to find that? And if only one person wants it one way, and several say to use another, then consensus will be done to make it that way. Dream Focus 03:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • [5]Note that the arbcom ruling was 6 to 0 that "The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding". Local consensus per article is what matters. So we need more editors to state their opinions. Dream Focus 03:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • OMG I can't believe this is going into RFC territory.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer said, "the standard that happens to be chosen should be the original one". Dreamfocus quoted, "defer to the style used by the first major contributor". You are both correct, and that's what I am doing. The style used by the first major contributor was "15 percent". This was the original version of the article, moved to mainspace on July 7, 2011 per the article history. It used "15 percent," "90 percent", "25 percent". Thus, we should defer to that style, per the guideline you just quoted. Personally that would NOT be my preference of style, but it is the way this article was set up and has been for most of its life, and it is one of several approved styles. The ArbCom ruling quoted at WP:MOSNUM makes it clear that we should not be wasting everybody's time squabbling over which of several approved styles is used here; we should leave it as it was originally set up and move on to more productive matters. --MelanieN (talk) 10:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The style continued to be "70 percent" through August 2, 2012.[6] On August 3 LuciferWildcat changed all references to "seventy percent", touching off a flurry of changes and reverts[7] over what should have been a settled issue. --MelanieN (talk) 10:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I was just quoting what was written in the suggestions of that guideline. Has the article grown to be several times its size since then, and would you be linking to that spot and arguing this case if it wasn't written in the style you wanted? We need editors to state which style should be used here, forming a local consensus. The arbcom ruling part links to different past arguments, the first one saying having the arbcom rule 6 to 0 that "The prescriptions of Wikipedia's manual of style are not binding". Meaning you don't have to follow them, they are just simple suggestions. Dream Focus 10:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
That's disingenuous of you, but here you go; '70 percent' is fine, Melanie's reasoning is fine, and the reason guidelines make those suggestions is because far more editors than will ever contribute to this article have already had these discussions. You don't have to follow them, but you should have a less disputable reason not to. Darryl from Mars (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No, actually, far more people will see and edit this article than that one. [8] Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers has been viewed 6903 times in the last 30 days. [9] Pink_slime has been viewed 44703 times in the last 30 days. And discussions over there for this topic, involve less people than you find here(see archives). Because two to four people decided something years ago, on a mostly ignored and forgotten guideline page, doesn't really hold that much bearing in what we do here and now. Dream Focus 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
See archives, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/vote, a decision with a few dozen contributions, to say nothing of those involved in the previous discussion. And my point stands that it's disingenuous of you to suddenly abandon the guideline because it supported Melanie, and to go even further and accuse her of only relying on it because it supports her position, when you were certainly willing to ask " What was the first [style] used?" before you learned what it was. By the way, that's the article, not this talk page. Now you're convinced you 'need more opinions'. How many opinions do you expect you need? Darryl from Mars (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
You linked to an area that had no mention of percentages of all. And I believe you need more than two or three opinions which is why I said we needed more. If someone had discussed things about percentages, and had over 20 votes supporting it done in a certain way, as some things in the linked discussions did get, then yeah, that'd be something to follow. But I'm not finding that anywhere. Dream Focus 09:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I was giving evidence to support the general statement I made about guidelines, sorry if that got confusing. Regardless, what is it about the arguments made so far that fails to satisfy you? Darryl from Mars (talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Split 1

The original and most widely used style historically for this page is 70% not 70 percent, 70 per cent, nor seventy percent. Irregardlessly I suggest we change it to "seventy percent" it looks better written out, too many numbers make for a harder read.71.142.69.216 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The original and most widely used style historically for this page is 70% not 70 percent, 70 per cent, nor seventy percent. May I ask what you base that on? Because my review of the article history indicated that the style for this page has been "70 percent" from the article's creation (July 7, 2011) until August 2, 2012. See links in my comment above. --MelanieN (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
The guideline specifically prefers numerals aka 70 (% or percent does not matter) over written out numbers aka seventy. --Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 20:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Could you provide a link for that, please? Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:NUMERAL Under 3.1 Numbers as figures or words, Exceptions (9th bullet down): "Percentages are usually written with figures, e.g., 10 percent or 10%."
Then the mos "hashes" out the % vs percent later down at WP:PERCENT.
Which leads to using "70 percent" as the correct way.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 21:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you, that's very helpful! I would say you and your links have settled the issue. (I wish they had repeated that sentence - saying "usually written in figures" - in the section of the article titled "Percentages". I'll go suggest it to them.) --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Usually does not mean correct that is a big fallacious leap.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
It's definitive enough that there is no basis for changing it from the long-standing style of this article, "70 percent," to something else. --MelanieN (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Controversial sentence at Beef Products Inc., the company responsible for pink slime

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! There has been a lengthy edit war over one of the lead sentences for the article Beef Products Inc. I am petitioning users who frequently edit this page because I know there is a long and controversial history here over the names pink slime and lean finely textured beef. I would appreciate editors' input on the matter, located here. - Sweet Nightmares 04:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I separated the lead from the products section, thats a good start. I did not alter any content as far as the product goes, that should be discussed first Aperseghin (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 12 years ago58 comments20 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. I'm going to quote from the close of the previous move request: Extensive discussion has not resulted in any broad shifting of views, and appears unlikely to do so, particularly in light of the continuing range of mass media articles and television segments identifying the subject by the current title. I suggest you all move on. --regentspark (comment) 13:46, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime → Lean finely textured beef – As stated multiple times above, the industry common name for this product is Lean finely textured beef 'LFTB the term 'Pink Slime' Is now and has always been a very POV nickname used by media outlets and online bloggers. The industry name should be used as the article title with Pink Slime as a redirect. In almost all articles about the substance (including most media articles) the product is referenced as Lean finely textured beef, even when those articles include the nickname of Pink Slime. It is common for articles use the name Pink Slime in the article title and then use the real name of the product later in the article. There is no organization or media outlet that denies that the name of the product is Lean finely textured beef (trimmings). The term Pink Slime is slightly POV and should not be used as the title for an article about this product. I have no specific connection to this product or the beef industry as a whole, but i feel strongly that the name of this article is not in line with Wikipedia's NPOV naming conventions and that the real name of the product should be used in the title of this article. Aperseghin (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC) the known names for this and similar products are

Lean finely textured beef
Boneless lean beef trimmings
Mechanically separated beef trimmings
Pink slime

one of these names is not like the others. of the above names, LFTB is the most common industry name used. Aperseghin (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

AGREE for all the reasons stated above Aperseghin (talk) 15:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Vote struck through per instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves, specifically, "Nominators should not add a separate support !vote, as the nomination itself qualifies as a !vote. Nominators may, of course, make comments and otherwise participate in the discussion." --BDD (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Without taking a position for or against the proposed move, I disagree with your statement that "mechanically separated beef trimmings" is a synonym for the other terms. I could find no reliable source online to say that "mechanically separated beef trimmings" refers to this product; at best it is a generic description. "Lean finely textured beef" and to a lesser extent "boneless lean beef trimmings" are the terms for the actual product also known as "pink slime," produced by Beef Products Inc. and described in this article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
point taken, i meant Mechanically separated meat, like the next user posted. :\ Aperseghin (talk) 16:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Since we are talking here about a specific product, I suggest you strike out the generic description. It is only distracting from your point, which is to choose between the names for this product. --MelanieN (talk) 16:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree and the "Mechanical" term appears to be a superset including this and other products. Collect (talk) 16:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons I already stated above. Also, last time this user brought this same subject was last month, [10]he then starting it again in a new section less than a week after the last comment was made opposing it, with more arguments in the section in-between. Please don't expect people to repeat this same exact debate every single month. Dream Focus 16:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC) edit update post to clarify at 19:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The previous discussions were simply informal discussions. This is a formal request for a move, which will be evaluated by an outside administrator, and action taken or not with reasons given, after an appropriate period of time. --MelanieN (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
RE: (Even the industry used to call it pink slime, before that name became controversial): I have never seen any evidence of that, and I doubt if it is true. --MelanieN (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
if we use WP:RNEUTRAL then pink slime becomes a viable redirect. if we use WP:NPOV then its only gppd as a redirect. its the big picture here.. and besides it says

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:"
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious

Aperseghin (talk) 19:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the controversy happened and should remain in the article. There is nothing POV about telling about something that actually happened. Aperseghin (talk) 20:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and if one consults the sections listed by Melanie one will see that this proposal is a waste of time -- it is plainly lacking consensus, and "Lean Finely Textured Beef" is not a policy-compliant title. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: Obviously this topic has been very heavily discussed, but there is one aspect I have not seen mentioned, and to me it is the decisive aspect. As I understand it, the main argument in favor of the current article name "Pink Slime" is that media coverage uses that name more commonly than any other. But, looking through those articles, it is striking how many (or even nearly all) of them use the term in quotation marks. If they considered it as the legitimate term for the product, they wouldn't do that; for example, you never see a headline like "Apple to release new 'iPad' this week" because the paper considers iPad to be the real name. The very frequent use of the quotes around "pink slime" suggests either that the paper is trying to attribute the term to someone else, as though to absolve themselves of responsibility, or that they are using "apologetic quotation marks", where you really mean something different, like a sign that says "Big 'Sale' Today". One grammer website [11] says, "The quotation marks will suggest to some people that you are using that word in a special or peculiar way and that you really mean something else". I also think that if the article were called "Lean Finely Textured Beef", it would be more consistent with the names of Wikipedia articles on similar products such as "Mechanically Separated Meat". --Rnickel (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the proposed title "lean finely textured beef" goes against WP:COMMONNAME. Searching on Google News finds about twenty times more usage of "pink slime" compared to "lean finely textured beef". Moreover, "pink slime" is found to be used in mainstream media stories, whereas "lean finely textured beef" is usually found in Google News only in specialty publications such as Beef Central, Beef Magazine, Feedstuffs, or local news media of cattle-raising regions. It is true that "pink slime" is often enclosed within quotation marks, or is referred to as "so-called pink slime", and there is often a parenthetical description of what it is; however, that description almost never uses the phrase "lean finely textured beef" or "LFTB". That is, when mainstream media refer to and explain "pink slime", they almost never invoke its supposed "real" name. Maybe it's just too much of a bureaucratic-sounding term, a marketer's euphemism. Note that sometimes bureaucratic-sounding jargon phrases do manage to enter mainstream usage: for example, "improvised explosive device" or "IED", which by now has almost as much recognition as the common name "roadside bomb". However, there is very little evidence that "lean finely textured beef" or "LFTB" has achieved any similar name recognition: it is an extremely obscure official name, and not the common name, and thus goes against WP:COMMONNAME. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. For reasons I've previously outlined. Short version: I don't believe the COMMONNAME argument is conclusive and the naming policy needs to be considered carefully and in full. Much as the alternative name may not seem great, it remains the name used by the US Department of Agriculture and regulators. "Pink slime" is a term that has really only achieved prominence in the context of current media controversy and the campaign to have it banned or removed from products. Counting the number of media outlets that use it isn't really relevant in my mind, particularly when the term itself uses such loaded language. It is impossible to consider something referred to as "slime" to be NPOV when it is a food product. The terms likely ephemeral use fits the exception, previously referred to by Aperseghin, from those cases where a non-neutral term might otherwise be accepted. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per previous discussions. There really is no neutral name for this topic; it's a choice between an industry euphemism and a term popularized by critics, so WP:COMMONNAME has to be the tiebreaker. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Gladly. If you think "euphemism" is too loaded or POV a term, we can say official name or something. At any rate, the article itself says "Pink slime refers to... beef products known in the meat processing industry as... LFTB," emphasis mine, of course. And rather than quoting a whole (albeit small) section to you, I'll point you to Pink slime#Etymology, which indicates both that "pink slime" is used by industry, and that the term was, in fact, coined by a regulator. Again, both terms are POV, and a truly neutral one would take some (impressive) original research on our part. If you don't believe the commonname argument, consider which phrase is more truly descriptive; LFTB suggests top-quality beef cut by a butcher, and is deceptive for a product which is... well, pink and slimy. --BDD (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I chased the source for that claim of it being known in the industry as PS - it is a POV source and cites no sources itself, so the claim in the article can't stand, and I have proposed removing it. Also, the term was never used by the regulator, it was used by certain individual employees internally, which is completely different (and mentioned - appropriately - in the WP article). The material is not "known in the industry as" pink slime. It is known as (as far as I can tell, i haven't looked at every source), LFTB. It is referred to in scientific publications as LFTB. It is known to the regulator as LFTB. It has been referred to by the consumer protection NGO of all things as, you guessed it, LFTB. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, the funny thing about POVs is that everybody has one. Since it is impossible to do otherwise, it is perforce permissible to edit Wikipedia and discuss Wikipedia's maintenance while having a POV. There is nothing about calling that particular spade a personal entrenchment tool that disqualifies my participation or my argumentation. What would be problematic is if I had a COI, but I have not disclosed one of those, nor do I possess one, and that's more than we can say for everybody in this discussion, isn't it? —chaos5023 (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose since this is a perennial request that in my honest opinion the user proposing it seems very closely affiliated with the meat industry I see no genuine editorial reason to even make such a proposal to a little known industry euphemism that is unclear and is not the COMMON NAME.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Attacks against the editor that suggested this (me) are useless and have no effect on the facts. As suggested above by others. the common name for this product is LFTB not pink slime. pink slime is almost always in quotes and the product is almost always (even in negative publications0 referenced by its actual name. Saying that pink slime is an industry term, using the argument that one person in the industry coined the term (which is true) is a faulty argument. The VW beetle is called a bug. Bug is not the article title, even though its in common usage. because the people who created the vehicle called it the VW Beetle. There are so many similar examples that it is glaringly obvious that the proper title for this article should be Lean finely textured beef. The obvious POV of the term Pink Slime, and what seems to be an obvious agenda by those that appose the name change, are just added factors that support the change. Aperseghin (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant; usage in this article has gone back and forth in a tug-of-war since its creation. Usage in this article will be determined by the title, not the other way around. --MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:IGNORE. Whatever rule we'd be following by naming this page "lean fine textured beef" or whatever the phrase is, since I've never seen it before today, does not improve Wikipedia. It's ludicrous to claim that fine textured lean beef, or whatever it is, is the "common name," since it seems that no one but the beef industry and various Wikipedia editors are aware of the term. MsFionnuala (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Per WP:POVTITLE WP:NDESC, which reads ...the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper noun...generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue - to move the article, we would require a better location for the article. Also, per the fact that "lean finely textured beef" is itself a pro-beef-industry POV term that is not used by anyone other than the beef industry. As I said previously, it would be one thing to rename the article to a truly neutral term, such as Ammonia-Processed Beef Scrap Lean Trimmings, but we cannot do that unless such a term catches on. 71.245.173.152 (talk) 05:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC) — 71.245.173.152 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment The single-purpose ISP account above is misrepresenting what WP:POVTITLE says. By their use of italics, they imply that "to move the article, we would require a better location for the article" is a quote from POVTITLE. It is not; it is just their opinion. And anyone who suggests that "Ammonia-Processed Beef Scrap Lean Trimmings" is a "truly neutral" title reveals their own strong anti-product bias. Funny, wasn't it Lucifer who kept trying to insert the word "scrap" into the lead sentence? --MelanieN (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Either file a SPI immediately or apologize for your assumption of bad faith, Melanie. I don't write like Lucifer, and I've already criticized his debating style as "unbalanced". Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia that IPs have equal rights, and I should be allowed to edit without having you use your little SPA template to try and silence or discredit me. Lastly, although you accuse me of having misrepresented POVTITLE, you failed to explain how it was misrepresented, deciding instead to attack me as an SPA and insinuate that I may be a sock of LuciferWildcat. I repeat, file the SPI or apologize. 71.245.173.152 (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I explained exactly what I meant by "misrepresented" - namely, that you included some material in italics as if it was part of the quote from POVTITLE, when it was not. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Well, now I feel a bit of a fool - I honestly did not realize I'd moved to a different section when I was reading the Article titles page. However, I still feel my argument is valid even if I cited the wrong guideline. I have amended my original post to cite the guideline I'm actually quoting. 71.245.173.152 (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment Those of you commenting, please make sure your vote to Support or Oppose is counted. Aperseghin (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose There is no reason to use the "industry standard name", as that in itself is also a POV name. All the possible names are POV for exactly the reason that there is a controversy in the first place. Without a controversy, there wouldn't be any POV to take. That's one of the main reasons why we have COMMONNAME in the first place, because it sets an easy line and standard for how naming should work, especially if there's a controversy. And it is quite clear that Pink slime is the most common name by far, which is why it should be used. SilverserenC 06:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME is trumped in this case by a few things namely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#Neutrality_of_redirects Aperseghin (talk) 15:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
It's not a POV name because it's also the term preferred by high-quality neutral sources like academic studies. And WP:COMMONNAME doesn't require us to give equal weight to scholarly and popular sources. Powers T 15:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
according to academic studies (http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42473.pdf) its LFTB do you have any sources that differ from the one i have provided?Aperseghin (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
That article was written by "Joel Greene who is he?

Joel Greene is an analyst in agricultural policy at the Congressional Research Service (CRS) where he has worked primarily on livestock and poultry policy issues since October 2010. Prior to joining CRS, he was a livestock analyst at USDA’s World Agricultural Outlook Board from 1999 to 2010. Before working at the World Board, he was the senior beef analyst in the Dairy, Livestock, and Poultry Division of the Foreign Agricultural Service, and an agricultural trade analyst in the Trade Analysis Branch of the Economic Research Service. He holds a BA degree in Asian studies from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and an MA degree in international affairs and economics from George Washington University" Aperseghin (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

and a few more http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1996.tb10951.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1745-4573.1997.tb00633.x/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1996.tb10978.x/abstract http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174000000383 Aperseghin (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Calling somthing I enjoy eating "slime" is offensive, not just POV. Using this as a wikipedia article title harms Wikipedia, not just the meet industry. In addition, I find Rnickel's argument to be particularly well-founded. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 22:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Are we really supposed to care that you enjoy eating it? Should I expect that others will care that I don't enjoy eating it? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
No, you are not suppose to care what I enjoy, only that I find the title current title offensive. I do believe not being offensive is relevant to the argument. The reason I decided to state a personal preference has to do with the fact that the current title is meant to make the cosumer ashamed of eating the product, and I think we have enough shame in the world as it is. →Yaniv256 talk contribs 23:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

So much for NPOV, the discussion was closed by quoting an old discussion. thats just lazy. There is obviously a split opinion here, and that is understood. I believe that this shows a complete lack of integrity. To allow a passionate soap box argument prevail over FACTS and REFERENCE is disgusting and common. I have that much less respect for wikipedia as a GOOD SOURCE of information. I will continue to edit here but this is a very hard blow. NPOV means something to me and SLIME in reference to FOOD (human dog or otherwise) is POV. Aperseghin (talk) 14:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC) The media asked an expert http://www.digtriad.com/news/article/227147/57/Pink-Slime-What-You-Need-To-Know- Aperseghin (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No Apsersghin, I quoted the earlier move close because it expresses my conclusion from reading the latest discussion accurately. Nothing has changed. Now, if you can just move on to the many other articles that need your attention, that would be good for everyone. --regentspark (comment) 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_slime/Archive_3&oldid=1090575023"