Talk:Pink slime/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

External links

Based on comments from User:Hamiltonstone at Talk:Pink slime/GA2, I have added to the article a sentence about the comments from the National Consumers League and also one from the Consumer Federation of America, and I then removed the NCL statement from the "External links" section. I believe that there are two other external links there that should be removed - one to a pro-product site and one to an anti-product site. IMO neither one belongs there per WP:EL. The link to the BPI official website is appropriate and should remain, since BPI is the (primary) producer of the product in question.

I also think we should delete the table detailing the results of a survey on consumer opinions about the product. Virtually all of the key results are already present in the article in text form; repeating them in table form gives undue weight to one small aspect of a much larger subject.

Considering how contentious this article is, I thought I should seek additional opinions before carrying out these deletions. Of course, anyone who agrees with my suggestions is welcome to go ahead and do the deletions themselves. --MelanieN (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I am going to go ahead and delete those two external links as well as the table. --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I am also wondering about those "external images" and "external videos" - whether they are appropriate for the article. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We should keep the links to stop pink slime and beef is beef. This article covers the controversy in depth and the websites for the boosters and opposition to this product are encyclopedically relevant for any serious scholarly inquiry. Furthermore the external images box is very useful to illustrate a product and a process where no free images are available.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Links should be to sites of some encyclopedic value - which is not the case for these purelyPOV sites. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am open minded on the image and video links; I don't have enough experience with such links to know when they are appropriate. However, the links to the two POV websites are definitely not acceptable per WP:EL. "Links normally to be avoided:...Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions." --MelanieN (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem valid, its not links to change.org and regardless that petition drive has come and gone. These two websites are prominent POV websites that are relevant to any academic study of this issue.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition - Key Missing Information

The nutritional value, or the lack thereof, is perhaps the most important element of the controversy, yet is essentially missing from this article. The only nutritional information in the article are general statements from a biased party (the manufacturer), and without verification or secondary sourcing. The brief mentions that the FDA has not found this product harmful is very different from saying it is nutritional.

This article would be well-served by adding a substantial amount of information on the actual nutritional content of this product, and showing it compared to various cuts of meat used for hamburger or other ingredients used by others in hamburger would be very insightful.

A good start would involve incorporating key aspects from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/03/27/pink-slime-deconstructed/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

This looks like a reliable source, on the basis that it appears to have been invited by Sci Am editors - I'm assuming therefore it is a fact-checked source. Has some reasonably balanced analysis and commentary. Suggest editors watch out for one bit though: where the author writes "Nutritionally, our gut bacteria digest much of what we cannot, but there’s a good bet that we can’t get as much value from insoluble proteins (collagen and elastin, found largely in tendons, ligaments, and cartilage) as from their soluble siblings (myosin and actin, usually associated with muscle tissues)." Note the qualifying language "there's a good bet", which actually translates as "but we don't know". Don't lose that qualification when translating the text for the WP article. I agree that the article shouldn't be relying on the manufacturer's comments in an interview with a New Scientist journo for nutritional info. I would be surprised if that was the only info available, and it seems a bit slack of NS to have taken that and reported it. If there is labelling on any packaging of the product, that would presumably meet US regulatory requirements, and could therefore be accepted... Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 02:16, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Please be careful - you are speculating as to what the Sci Am author means by "it's a good bet". I can speculate many other interpretations that would be as reasonable as or more reasonable than your speculation. Put another way, virtually everything we "know" scientifically is not known with absolute certainty, but with varying degrees of statistical probability, and many scientists therefore talk informally about everything being a "bet" of some kind, but that does not detract from the actual insight or makes something controversial. I suggest a request for clarification on what the author meant, from either the author or Sci Am. In terms of other sources for nutritional value, I tried but could not find any succinct, on-topic article on nutrition actually absorbed by the human body of soluble versus insoluble proteins, but such information likely exists. Enjoy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

• "there's a good bet" is a colloquialism - IP, I think you're over-analysing the situation. We can't contact them and ask - that would end up as WP:OR. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 01:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

• It's just your guess that it's a 'colloquialism', wholly unsupported by anything other than your opinion, and given its context in a SciAm article, such a guess would be wholly inconsistent with the nature of the publication. If in wiki's view understanding the context and meaning of anything is 'original research', then you need to embrace the last 400 years of the development of the scientific method. Just because wiki has financial and management limitations in managing content doesn't mean fundamental scientific and research standards have changed. You may regard adhering to well-established journalistic and scientific principles as 'original research' and thus beyond the scope of whatever wiki thinks its mission is, but that in now way changes reality or what is credible. If adhering to the scientific method is 'over-analysing' in your (clearly narrow and inexperienced) opinion, then such people stand so accused. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 23:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Query

Is the billion dollar lawsuit do minor that it should not be mentioned in the lede? Collect (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why mention a frivolous lawsuit? Does Oprah Winfrey's article mention that a beef company sued her too? It isn't important for summarizing the content of the article, so it isn't what a lede should be. Dream Focus 01:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

The case here appears to be a teensy bit less than "frivolous". "Trade defamation" is a major area of law. Collect (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

No, This article is about a PRODUCT not a CONTROVERSY. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

If this article is really about a product, shouldn't we use the product's name instead of a name promoted by the subject of a law suit? Rklawton (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

See above discussion above that, or the one before it which had the same results. Dream Focus 20:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm familiar with these discussions. They are the clear and direct result of editors forcing their personal biases on Wikipedia. The reality is that the term "Pink Slime" didn't become "popular" until ABC began to smear the product. This article's title is clearly the product of editors who jumped on ABC's band-wagon and shouted down all reasonable arguments against moving toward a more neutral name. Indeed, this article was deleted early on as blatant soapboxing. This article's title is an embarrassment to Wikipedia and a blaring example of a violation of one of Wikipedia's most important pillars. Lastly, with the lawsuit against ABC making headlines, it's only a matter of time before journalists discover this article. And when they do, I hope they single out every editor who promoted the title "Pink Slime" for public attention. Rklawton (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• Some interesting background from Slate. It is shameful that we have chosen to use a term over which there is now a defamation lawsuit as the title of this article. COMMONNAME does not and should not trump COMMONSENSE. Powers ^T 13:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Which particular corporate branding effort constitutes "common sense", in your view? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Straw man. What's common sense is to avoid using a derogatory term and thereby slanting the controversy in one direction over another. Powers ^T 17:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Need pictures of pink slime. Can anyone source some free-to-use pictures? RE Pink Slime. I did not know about Pink Slime being called Lean finely textured beef until I googled pink slime which directed me to this page. Pink Slime is not negative POV term as it really is pink and it really is slime. Thats like saying its negative POV to refer to pond scum as pond scum because scum is an offensive or negative term. Its not POV when its a factual description. This combined with Pink Slime being the commmon term for Pink Slime means I support Pink Slime. Kane Caston (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure pictures would be handy. Re your other point: that's kind of ironic. Have you looked up pond scum on wikipedia? It redirects to its proper name algae :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 22:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime is not actually all that slimy. [1]. That link also explains how the term was invented specifically to make it sound unappetizing, when in reality it's no worse than any other edible byproduct of butchering. Powers ^T 01:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source?

In the Etymology section of the article, we say pink slime was coined by USDA microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein in a 2002 internal email, as reported in The New York Times in 2009. But we also say that "people in the beef industry" have referred to it as such, with the source being cited as The Great Food Robbery, a book published in 2012. The book does say "the product, known in the industry as 'pink slime' for its distinctive look." But is that reliable? Who in the beef industry used that term? I suspect the book is just wrong, or has a very loose definition of "the industry." In any case, I suggest removing this claim that "people in the beef industry" call it pink slime, unless a better source can be found. —mjb (talk) 14:43, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• IIRC I raised this issue in the good article reassessment. I remain of the view that that particular source cannot be relied upon for this claim, unless we can locate some industry reliable sources that use the term pink slime. Support deletion of that particular point. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

OK, actually the whole Etymology section is redundant with the History section that follows it, so I removed it. The refs are usable elsewhere in the History section, so I moved them as needed. The only content removed is:

• that "people in the beef industry" called it pink slime (dubious, as I mentioned above).
• that the name was given due to the product's "viscous appearance in its unfrozen form and pinkish color" (this was attributed to The Great Food Robbery, which doesn't actually go into such detail).

Here's the diff (click). —mjb (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

LFTB Fact Sheet

I made a slew of edits to add details to the History section, using documents accompanying the 2009 New York Times article as the main source. Specifically, the documents to look at are:

• 2001 letter from Agriculture Department to Beef Products' representative
• 2003 study commissioned by company

It's possible there's more useful content in the collection; I only really concentrated on pulling info from those two docs. I believe everything I added is just summarizing what's in there, although if there's concern that I've synthesized or inferred something, we can certainly get more specific with direct quotes or whatever. I cited everything so you know where to look. Let me know if any concerns, or just fix whatever's wrong.

Anyway, I noticed that the Product Overview section gives some LFTB processing details that differ slightly (temperature-wise) from the process described in the documents I referred to for the History section. The Product Overview uses a LFTB Fact Sheet from the South Dakota Department of Agriculture. Any idea where that document is now? It seems to have disappeared. Please add a new link if possible. It's fine if the process has changed since it was originally approved, but I don't like having a dead link as the reference for the current process. Google reveals a number of lftb fact sheet results that might be worth checking, if the South Dakota one can't be found. —mjb (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence still needs work

Editors are in the habit of making the lead sentence of many articles take the form

<article topic> refers to <relevant definition>

or the even more egregious

<article topic> is a term that refers to <relevant definition>

instead of the arguably more accurate and WP:REFERS-compliant

<article topic> is <relevant definition>.

In this article, we currently have

Pink slime refers to mechanically separated and disinfected beef products...

Normally I would replace refers to with is and leave an edit summary along the lines of The topic of the article is X, not the word X. See WP:REFERS. I mean, if the topic of the article is this set of beef products, and pink slime is this set of beef products (at least, it's not any other substance, regardless of whether the term is pejorative), then we really should use is instead of refers to. If I were to make that edit here, though, I'm afraid it might be contentious:

Pink slime is mechanically separated and disinfected beef products...

Would everyone agree to that? Yeah, didn't think so.

It seems to me that refers to was chosen here to imply is; it feels weasel-wordy. It's already made clear in the lead that the meat industry has its own names for the products. We should make it equally clear that pink slime is a critical USDA microbiologist's term which became a popular pejorative amid concerns over food safety. WP:LEADSENTENCE provides some guidance here, insofar as it points out that 1. the lead sentence need not be subjected to severe contortions just to fit the usual format (we can deviate from Pink slime is...); and 2. if the article topic is notable for one reason, that reason should be mentioned. Would someone like to take a crack at improving the lead, accordingly? —mjb (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Boneless lean beef trimmings (colloquially known as pink slime) are ... Powers ^T 23:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Mike for your cogent discussion. Yes Powers suggestion is an option, but (as I keep saying, without making a great deal of progress) the lede should refer to the term used by the regulator, as a neutral body, the USDA: lean finely textured beef.hamiltonstone (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Although they approved them, I don't think the USDA came up with the LFTB and BLBT terms themselves. These terms were apparently proposed by BPI (at least, that's implied by documents attached to the 2009 NYT article) and the USDA rubber-stamped them. They are still widely considered euphemistic (e.g., Google lean finely textured beef euphemistic).

Regardless, since WP:LEADSENTENCE says we aren't bound by the <topic> is... template, I was thinking something more like this:

A category of mechanically separated and disinfected beef products, termed lean finely textured beef (LFTB) and boneless lean beef trimmings (BLBT) by the U.S. meat packing industry, and pejoratively dubbed by critics pink slime—and, less commonly, soylent pink—was the subject of controversy in 2011–2012, amid public concerns over the safety and labeling of ground beef to which the products were added.

This way, we're using our neutral descriptor (mechanically separated and disinfected beef products) as the article's topic, we still highlight the USDA-approved euphemisms and the critical pejoratives (and it's still clear which is which), and we indicate why the topic is notable (recent controversy). To improve upon it, I would remove mention of soylent pink; it's not that popular of a term, and it would improve readability of the lead sentence. We can still mention soylent pink and boldface it later in the article; it's not absolutely required to be mentioned right away. —mjb (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The fact that we can diverge from the usual form of lead sentences doesn't mean that we should do so. This article is about "pink slime" as that term has been used in a plethora of sources. That usage is not just about the meat product itself, and there's no need to contort the sentence in the way proposed. I do not think it is improved this way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Mjb made a careful and clear case why we should depart from the usual form. That said, everything was going OK when Powers suggested "colloquially known as pink slime", but "pejoratively dubbed by critics pink slime" is taking it too far. Though I and some others have argued that the term is a pejorative, we did not achieve consensus and, in any case, most editors would argue that it is no longer only used pejoratively, but is everyday shorthand in the media. By all means discuss the longer formulation, but I suggest it should use Powers' words to describe the nature of the "pink slime" term.hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

But the dubbing was pejorative, even if current usage is less so. Also, I would argue that while "boneless lean beef trimmings" may be a euphemism, "pink slime" is assurredly a dysphemism, which is just as bad if not worse. I wonder why so many are quick to disparage euphemisms while readily accepting dysphemisms. Powers ^T 13:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, all. As I stated in the initial argument, we're already going through contortions if we say "pink slime is..." or otherwise try to cram all the boldfaced words onto the left side of the equation.

I deliberately avoided the use of "euphemism"; I have my opinion (much the same as I consider the BPI lawsuit to be a SLAPP) but a Collect would probably agree, I'd need to point to more than a Google search result to establish that as a "fact".

I'm not attached to inclusion or exclusion of "pejorative" and was unaware of previous discussion (I skimmed the archives), so no problem, we can change that. But "dysphemism" is such an academic word, nearly everyone who sees it is going to have to click on the link to find out what it means. Aren't we supposed to avoid situations like that in the lead?

I see the point that pink slime started as a pejorative but became everyday shorthand. I'd like to try to capture this info in the first sentence. It may require a second sentence, although I'm a big proponent of using semicolons and em dashes where feasible.

Anyway, is there any objection to delaying the introduction of soylent pink until the body of the article? —mjb (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Soylent pink" was added by one persistent editor. "Dysphemism" was as far as he would allow anything to say here. AFAICT, it is of no value at all to this article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm content to have "soylent pink" moved out of the lead and into a later position in the article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree soylent pink is one term that could be referred to in body text but not in lead. The other three are either widely used, or used in significant / reputable or independent sources. These criteria don't apply to soylent pink.hamiltonstone (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I changed the lead sentence by removing 'refers to' to "is". It sounded odd and longwinded. Kane Caston (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

news article about ABC/BPI lawsuit

Here's an article about the BPI lawsuit. It has a few links, although I'm not sure about referencing them (is that a primary source?) Anyway, thought this might be helpful. http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/11/01/51903.htm AgnosticAphid talk 18:30, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

ABC News is not a reliable resource

They and the people being used as resources are not impartial. They are the subject of a 1.2 billion dollar lawsuit. Many experts from places such as the USDA, the KDSA, and many academic institutions disagree with these kinds of statements. Using articles that are the subject of pending lawsuits is not neutral when the people in them have no authority to speak on such matters. The articles in question actually show that other people at the USDA and BPI disagreed with people like Zirnstein and Foshee, their surperiors with more authority at that. So using these articles to make factual statements is pure bias and part of why this article is so poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to erroneously think that news articles are only useful, reliable, and impartial if they are undisputed. But unflattering news articles are always disputed, especially when it affects someone's business or reputation. So the fact that there's a lawsuit, or "many experts" who disagree, is meaningless. As far as I can tell, ABC News did not make any controversial claims directly, anyway. They reported that certain people said certain things about LFTB. BPI wants to hold ABC News accountable for the effect that the publication of the statements had on the meat business, yet there's no dispute that those people said anything or were misquoted, it's just over whether ABC is liable for economic harm for having published it. Of course there are the expected attacks on the credibility of the speakers; this is not unusual, even in the most frivolous of defamation suits.

Anyway, ABC's coverage was a significant event in the entire controversy, and we must talk about the lawsuit, so it's crucial to summarize what was said. Now, if there's a need to balance this with better coverage of the contrary positions taken by BPI and those who disagree, then let's talk about it. But your claim (in edit summary) that ABC is "lying" is unsubstantiated hyperbole, and your attempts to scrub the article of relevant content will not be tolerated. —mjb (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

But reliability is a requirement, and ABC News is primarily an entertainment show and not serious journalism - especially for an encyclopedia that prefers peer reviewed journals (and oh how are standards have been cast aside for this article)... Rklawton (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact a lawsuit exists and others at the USDA disagreed with those claims made in the article means you cannot state it as fact, you have to include that these claims are seriously disputed by experts when making any claims made by ABC or the "whistleblowers" they quoted since they are ALL disputed. It was not pet food. BPI had a new technique to separate the meat from the trimmings, that had never been done before, it was a new product, not trimmings. Maybe trimmings were put in dog food, but the product known as ltfb was new and was always meant for human consumption. What a lame threat, don't put content that's not neutral if you don't want it to be deleted. How about we not talk about it and you simply include all sides of the story in your edits.Abracadabra777 (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You need to read WP:NOTTRUTH, the first sentence of which is: 'Wikipedia's core sourcing policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, used to define the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia as "verifiability, not truth"'. Mojoworker (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

ABC News has been rated as one of the most respected and reliable and accurate sources of news. Kane Caston (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue is one of point of view in an "investigative report" which is a subset of "news." And one where "reputation" does not imply "infallibility." Collect (talk) 22:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Pink Slime Redirect issue?

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

---

Why should lean finely textured beef redirect to "Pink slime" when the actual name of the product is lean finely textured beef? Seems a bit biased to me. Only thing that should ever be redirected to is the official name, not slang or derogatory terms for the same product. I vote to change the redirect action and the article name to "lean finely textured beef" with mention that it is also know as "pink slime".Harshbarj (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - The article was deleted a couple of times initially for that reason. We've also got policies that support your position as well (we use common names for things except in cases when those names are not neutral), but there are two or three editors who prefer the more sensational term, and that's blocked any move toward neutrality. If you review some of the earlier discussions, you'll see all this hashed out. It won't make you happy, but at least you'll see you're not alone. Rklawton (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disagreeing with heavy heart - WP:NOTSOAP after all, WP:NPOV, and so on... This is an article that cannot have a neutral title, because either "pink slime" or anything but "pink slime" will be considered a victory for one side or the other. Look at this lamest edit wars candidate for a history of how dumb this can get. The article title, as it is now, is not neutral, and I by my nature prefer boring names during controversy. "Pink slime" is the more recognizable title, and WP:NPOV is the problem. Blindly following naming conventions to use the most recognizable name rather than the technical name is a grudging obedience to pre-existing decisions not made for this particular article. I've attempted to fix the article lead to try and make it clear that it's a common name, not the correct name. Finding a third option that neither legitimizes nor de-legitimizes the product would be the best solution. I would Agree that a name change would be desirable. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to the lead sentence still seem to be trying too hard to stick to the "<Article title> is..." sentence construction, which, as I argued above, is not really necessary; we're allowed to deviate from it in a situation like this. So regardless of what title the article has, we can put the industry's names first, and we can be explicit about who calls it what. Wouldn't this alleviate your concerns? Also, I feel it's not necessary to explain scare quotes; just use them. —mjb (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is about a product, it's natural, and neutral to use the product's name - and we have a naming policy that makes an exception to "common name" in these cases. But that's something activists are more than happy to overlook when it supports there agenda. Rklawton (talk) 14:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is the industry that manufactures the product calls it LFTB, so that's what the article should be called. As has been pointed out, the term "pink slime" was coined with the intent of shock value. Using the name the manufacturer gives it IS neutral. Calling it pink slime is taking sides and is highly unencyclopedic!Harshbarj (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree. This is the most blatant violation of WP:NPOV imaginable. A social media campaign is not a reliable source. IP, this isn't about which side wins "victory", it's about whether an article title should be given an obviously defamatory title. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 14:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am, as previously, opposed to using meat-industry euphemisms in place of the term used much more widely in reliable sources. The idea that LFTB is the "actual name" has not been demonstrated. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd posted awhile back a link to an article that clearly explained that "pink slime" was a derogatory term used for "lean finely textured beef". However, the activists roundly ignored it as inconvenient to their cause. Since the product clearly and obviously predates the pejorative term, it's only logical that LFTB is the product's original description - sold under a variety of names. If I bothered to look it up, would it change your mind, or are you set on slamming the industry? Rklawton (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If we are to have any hope of finally resolving this, tossing accusations at the supporters of the "pink slime" title is not going to get us there. It's important for those of us who oppose the title to understand where the supporters are coming from: specifically, that "pink slime" is indeed widely used in the media to refer to the product. Our argument should focus, then, on the facts: a) that "pink slime", when used in reliable sources, is often found within scare quotes, indicating its status as a questionable or slangy term; b) that other terms are also widely used, if not to the same extent, but at least without scare quotes; and c) that "pink slime" was coined specifically for its negative connotations and is thus contrary to our NPOV guidelines. Powers ^T 16:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Just as a dumb question, is it permissible for the article to be moved to the title "Pink slime" with scare quotes? This is by far the most common way I've seen it rendered in print, and it obeys NPOV by (albeit informally) disclosing that Wikipedia does not accept this as correct terminology, we're just using the recognized term. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't really understand this claim that this isn't the "actual name". It's the term that is used by the company[2] and it's used in numerous independent sources[3]. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's really quite a mistake to believe that we must defer -- particularly in the naming of articles -- to the marketing efforts of large corporations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's equally wrong to adopt highly pejorative and POV names used by media campaigns. Also if those marketing efforts involve a company giving a particular name to their own product then we may well defer - that seems to constitute an official name. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia concept of WP:OFFICIALNAME. We'll have to go with the policies we have. The "common name" thing is obviously a matter of dispute -- so we'll have to work it out via consensus -- particularly in light of the conclusions of several previous discussions on the matter. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

My point really is that adopting the name "pink slime" is clearly defering to a particular interest group. Two alternatives exist: one title is a bland description of the product and the "actual name" under which the product is traded; the other is obviously designed to provoke disgust, and I think that's contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. The guideline you point to refers to the widely accepted policy that long, official, but less recognised, names (of countries or foreign organisations for example) are not used where a more common name exists. I don't think the circumstances it describes really exist here. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is the industry that manufactures the product has a name for it. That is the name that should be the title of the article. You are free to disagree with the name, but it has an agreed upon name already.Harshbarj (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

(←) I think the issue presented by that policy, though, is very understandable - we should title the article based on what we expect the reader is looking for. Most people aren't going to read up on LFTB unless they heard about the term "pink slime" and are trying to get some information on what people are talking about. There are exceptions, of course, but this is a general use encyclopedia, not a technical manual, so we are writing first and foremost for that general audience. Redirecting to a technical term may confuse readers, because they may not be sure they're at the right article. That thought process and logic are intact, even if the specifics of the policy do not mandate its use in this situation. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 01:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, most media in the United States does not use "pink slime" as if it is the name, rather it speaks of it as an insult, nearly always using quotation marks and often mentioning lftb too. This is a widely reported term of abuse, not the common name for the product. Internationally there has been quite a bit of recent coverage, mostly reporting that Jamie Oliver has been sued for calling lftb "pink slime". The company's official name for the product has been widely used and there is every likelihood that people (as I did) will search for lean finely textured beef and be surprised by the redirect to the insult. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 10:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Against redirection This discussion was already had multiple times with ample people involved for consensus to be clear. This is what reliable sources most commonly call it, and this is the common name it is known by most people. That is what we go by here. Dream Focus 20:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there's clearly no consensus in favour of the "pink slime" title. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Dream Focus has rallied against this name change over and over. There has NEVER been a consensus but now that it is no longer a media hot button, hopefully people will realize that LFTB is the REAL name and that Pink Slime is just an old buzz word Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support The initial "media blitz" is over, the NYT still only uses the term in quotation marks, it is clearly a dysphemism and as such is a poor choice for an article title following WP:NPOV. Collect (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Though it's unfortunately not a very neutral title, obviously seekers of knowledge about this subject will be searching for "pink slime" rather than "LFTB". WP:COMMONNAME. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME only says that the most common name is "often" used. It also makes clear that the neutrality of an article title must be considered. Clearly the fact the people commonly use this term of abuse is not an overriding argument. As I've said, the news sources don't seem to be implying that that is its name and LFTB is very commoon too. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 16:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• SUPPORT. Both NPOV and COMMONNAME point toward the redirect change. a redirect will in no way hinder a persons ability to find this, try looking up 'rubber tree' and you get pointed to its actual name without any issue. The same should happen for Pink Slime Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment by my reading and count of the preceding comments in favour and opposed to a move, we have now for the fourth time learned that there is no consensus for moving the page to BLBT or LFTB. -sche (talk) 00:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose any move or change of name of article away from pink slime. I originally knew nothing of this product until I googled pink slime and found this article. Pink slime would be I expect the main keyword leading to this article not the terminology pushed by the meat companys. Also I would like to say that ABC News has been rated one of the highest quality sources in news. Kane Caston (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I just googled lean finely textured beef and the first thing in their list was our article. So no problem with google for either name. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Support the move. Suppose someone came upon the term "pink slime" for the first time. Would they think it's something disgusting? Of course they would. The term is just as pejorative as ever, and always will be, because "slime" is an inherently pejorative word in English. I've never seen as blatant a violation of NPOV on Wikipedia as this article title. If the USDA, a neutral source, calls it something, we should defer to them rather than to marketers or anti-product activists; the USDA calls it "lean finely textured beef". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – per WP:COMMONNAME. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose See the {{oldmoves}} template above—this has already been discussed extensively. If you'd like to request a move, you may, but don't be surprised if it ends the same way previous attempts have.
• Support The most applicable policy is WP:POVTITLE, and "Pink Slime" is pretty much the embodiment of a colloquialism where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious and a moniker that won't last. LFTB is historical, still widely used by specialists, technically more accurate and not so inherently biased as pink slime.

The previous move request discussion result was:

"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."

This will obviously change as the dysphemism fades out of the media, so why not be encyclopedic and implement the long-lasting name NOW? --Jules.LT (talk) 14:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer: WP:CRYSTAL. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Non-free image use

Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline is the aplicable rule for using non-free content. The current lede image is specifically labelled "non-free".

A separate, specific rationale must be provided each time the image is used in an article

For visual identification of the object of the article. is the "rationale" given. It has absolutely none of the "Necessary Components" required by Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Not free - agreed. Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

True, it's not free -- but a proper/complete rationale for fair use could surely be accomplished. Utility in understanding content is a no-brainer. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If "utility" were the only criteria, then all non-free images could be used everywhere they're useful. Rather, the criteria also includes the idea that no other images are available. This criteria is literal rather than figurative. That is, it's not enough that we can't find a free image to use. The image actually has to be irreplaceable. Like, for example, an image of Kennedy's head exploding during his assassination or an album cover (used to illustrate an article about the album). We simply can not steal people's work and re-use it because it's "useful" to us. In the case at hand, anybody can take a picture of this product and donate it to us. As a result, we have zero justification of stealing someone else's work. Rklawton (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know there are other criteria. But I'm not sure I agree with the point about being able to take another picture. I have no idea where I could do that, myself. But I do agree that we'd have to be confident there aren't available free images. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Lack of free images is not justification for stealing a non-free image. The image itself has to be irreplaceable. This is obviously not the case here. Rklawton (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "or could be created" is open to interpretation. You are interpreting it one way; there are good-faith differences on that score. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the product is still being manufactured, a new image can be created any second now. And since there's no shortage if existing images - most of them interchangeably useful, there's no shortage of photographers who may decide to release one of their images into the public domain. As a result, there's no justification for using (stealing) someone's work without their permission. I'm a professional photographer, and I've argued and won this point many times here and in Commons. You might not want to believe me, but that's entirely up to you. Rklawton (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw a clip of an animated diagram from ABC News on The Daily Show which illustrated how ammonia-soaked centrifuge-separated byproduct paste was made. Instead of a photo, we could produce a free diagram along those lines. Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

ambiguous paragraph

first you say it is not allowed then you say it is allowed,this paragraph may need to be modified to be more clear

not allowed
the product is not permitted in Canada.[28] 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.[28][29]

is allowed
Canada does allow Finely Textured Meat (FTM) to be "used in the preparation of ground meat" and "identified as ground meat" under certain conditions.[30] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.202.74 (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Pet Food

The claim that it was pet food comes from ABC, and they are currently being sued over this claim in court. Not only has the company 100% denied it, the authority on the subject, the man in charge of the first approval of the product, says it is a lie. "“Lean fine-textured beef is not unsafe, deceptive or pet food,” says H. Russell Cross, professor and head of the Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University. “I approved the use of this product in food when I was administrator of FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) because it is safe and an excellent source of nutrients.” http://www.cattlenetwork.com/drovers/columns/Outraged-but-not-over-pink-slime-147044515.html?view=all

Wikipedia is not your personal propaganda tool, you must include this fact as part of the article. I have added this before but it has been removed once already. I won't allow it to be scrubbed again. Thank you. Abracadabra777 (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the place for either of you to pursue your personal POVs. If there is a reliable source, not contradicted by another reliable source, that says it is used as pet food, then include it. It isn't an issue. Beef is used as pet food and is the same stuff people eat. But if there is a reliable source that contradicts the claim, then the contradictory claims should be included in the article. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Listing scads of stores chains and school districts ...

No longer appears to be of encyclopedic value for readers. No major chain appears to use the product currently, and the listing of every press release available simply bloats the article. Collect (talk) 22:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is important to document for posterity that major and regional food chains eliminated this product and how the public demanded it in a grassroots manner, completely removing it is content removal and erases part of the story for future readers to know what happened during this health scare. A complete list is not needed but some companies continue to sell it so I think it would be important to preserve this, even if condensing could be an option but content removal is not allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.238 (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Taking that backwards, content removal is allowed, it is a question of encyclopaedic value, accuracy, reference to reliable sources and avoiding undue weight, while writing in summary style. The article should reflect what reliable sources (which incidentally might not include press releases unless they were from an organisation itself regarded as reliable and not biased in this context) say about how the campaign unfolded. That does not require names to be used, unless one or more of them was particularly critical to how the issue played out. I am not convinced that Collect's point that "no major chain appears to use the product currently" is relevant to consideration, however Collect's conclusion - that we should not have a shopping list of names there - is the correct one. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an ongoing project accumulating salient information, some things pass from being current affairs into being important enough to being of historical merit unto themselves. Considering that the subject matter met WP:GNG, and that WP:NOTTEMPORARY is applicable, I'd suggest that it could do with a change into the past tense (if it is certain that it that the use of the product is in the past tense) and a bit of a tidy, but should be retained.

@Collect: Living in Australia, I am unfamiliar with the affair. I've just read through this article for the first time and am having difficulty in finding the "scads" (sic) of stores, companies or school districts you're referring to.

@Hamiltonstone: I can certainly see a lot of names that are critical to a coherent reading of the article, as well as their still being politically and economically active individuals, companies, etc. That does not translate as some sort of automatic indictment of any individual or company, nor does the fact of this taking place in the 'past' automatically mean that there should be a hefty redaction of information relevant to the issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

some iteration of "pink slime" reduced

Still over 130 times left in the article and footnotes - which seems an eensy bit heavy-handed for a dysphemistic term. Collect (talk) 01:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

You went through and changed the wording to call it something else. [4] That seems rather ridiculous. The article is named "pink slime". The product is waste meat never considered fit for humans before, treated with ammonia to kill off harmfully organisms so they could mix it back in with regular meat. No matter what you call it, its going to be seen as negative. We could call it "recycled waste meat treated with ammonia" for a more specific name, but it wouldn't make any difference how people saw it. Dream Focus 17:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

To say the product is waste meat is misleading and to say it was never considered for human consumption is not true. It is taken from the exact same cuts of meat that the rest of the meat is taken from. LFTB is only a method to extract MORE meat, utilizing the meat in the nooks and cranies that would otherwise be too difficult to cut away with a knife. Before this process, it was only sent to be used in pet food production because the cost of extracting the remaining meat was not cost effective. In every way these are the same cuts of meat that the rest of the meat comes from, so to say it is not fit for human consumption is at least deliberately misleading, if not an outright lie. Also, the low level of ammonia used to purify the beef is used in many other products and has been approved by government agencies since the 1970's. Ammonia is a naturally occurring element in nature. Lean Finely Textured Beef contains less ammonia than brussel sprouts. The misinformation contained in the above comment by Dream Focus demonstrates the uniformed and politically motivated intent of those posting on this topic.Ima Groinitch (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

And "pink slime" is still only used in quotes in major media - it is not the name of the product. And I rather think that having well over a hundred uses remaining in the article should satisfy anyone who hates the stuff. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

maybe everyone would do good to read this article http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/food/2012/10/history_of_pink_slime_how_partially_defatted_chopped_beef_got_rebranded.html Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

That article specifically italicizes the phrase or places it in quotes for each occurrence. It does not use it as an "ordinary term" at all. Collect (talk) 20:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

It is the name for this product, it is idiomatic well referenced and established in American English, the other terms are company terms only used by some companies but not others and are not in use by the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.74.238 (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)