Talk:Beef Products

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Food and drink / Foodservice (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 


"treating with a tiny bit of ammonia?"[edit]

This is not an accurate statement because what is tiny to one person is not tiny to another. It also infers that the ammonia is only on the untreated meat for "less than a second", which in fact is the ammonia product is actually inside the finished treated product.

This was obviously written by the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.26.179 (talkcontribs) 08:55, 9 September 2011 UTC

When defining the process - wouldn't the company be more inclined to know how the process actually works? The various false and misleading reports have already been debunked by science, industry, and academics and described by some as media hyped scare tactics. Is it then fare to promote or republish these false reports? I would like 67.171.26.179 to advise how he knows the specifics of how the ammonia is applied and how he can prove it is any different than what the company states. The companies process definition has been verified by reputable sources. I would like 67.171.26.179 to expand. Also,tiny has one meaning "small". If the company and the reputable reports all describe it as such - how can that be subject for debate - unless of course that person has information to the contrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.199.26 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Article issues[edit]

I have removed the multiple issues tag, which had classified this article as a peacock, advertisement, and needing improved references.

This article has plenty of references for one of its size and does not read like an advertisement if you ask me. I have changed some of the language to be more neutral & less passive, and I don't believe it qualifies as a peacock article.

I'm not even sure it needs to be checked for neutrality, because facts kind of speak for themselves. It may, however, give too much weight to the ammonia process. What does the Wikipedia community think? SweetNightmares (awaken) 17:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"cattle-based"[edit]

Is simply an inane and silly wording. Kindly do not revert to it again per WP:EW. Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Cow, perhaps -- but I agree, cattle is silly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Most is "steer" as a matter of fact. When in doubt, though, the simple word "beef" appears to be less risory in an article. Collect (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree in general beef may be a better term but for a topic where there is serious questioning as to whether the product even constitutes meat we should be as accurate as possible. I have no opposition to compromising with cow-based as it is as accurate as cattle.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

cleanup[edit]

This this seems like it's mostly an article about pink slime, especially the intro and not an article about the company, we need to fix that.20:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

lead separated from products, that's a start Aperseghin (talk) 14:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Changes made July 6[edit]

Firstly, I noticed several pieces of information that used to be in the article have since been removed. They are relevant to the company and factual, and they come from reliable sources, so they have been restored. I will be keeping a close eye on this article from now on.

Second, there is hardly a need for the controversy section and it goes against Wikipedia policy (see WP:CSECTION). Yes, the company is having trouble, but rather than trying to be partisan about it let's write an NPOV article together. There is no reason that information can't be stored under "history."

Finally, I feel that many parts of the article ("several supermarkets and fast-food companies," "several state governors,") were too vague, so I have specified the concerned parties. On the other hand, the implication about ABC/FOX being solely responsible for the "flurry of media coverage" is inaccurate and has been changed accordingly. - Sweet Nightmares 19:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears that someone has deliberately moved, removed, or otherwise changed many of the references to confuse/mislead readers. One particular statement rang some alarms:
"The product is ground as a lean meat source in finished ground beef, usually constituting no more than 15 percent of the final product."
It wasn't even mentioned by the citation, and was actually said to be 25% on two other sources. This page ought to be watched carefully; someone affiliated with the company may be working on it. If that's the case, I would appreciate some transparency. - Sweet Nightmares 20:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
This article and especially Pink Slime have consistently been edited with edits that favor the company viewpoint almost exclusively from servers located near the headquarters of BPI in Des Moines or the headquarters of API in Pennsylvania so we really have to keep an eye out for that and editing patterns typical of them from other accounts if they get wise to our monitoring of their meddling. I have noticed they have increased the subtitles and sophistication of their insertions and this is truly unencyclopedic and subversive to our project.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Neologism[edit]

"Pink slime" is not found in any standard dictionary. LWC says "it is in Wiktionary" -- where, wonder of wonders, the entry was created by ... Luciferwildcat. I suggested to him that he self-revert as he is at a blatant 3RR at this point, but if he does not, I suggest that the edit war where he wants to use the word he, himself, created the Wiktionary entry for, is absurd. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Who created the Wiktionary entry is irrelevant. You are just as guilty of edit warring and I've got half a mind to report you both, right this instant. - Sweet Nightmares 20:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Scare quotes[edit]

Are you suggesting I created the term pink slime? That is the common name of this product. It is the accepted named used on the pink slime entry. The media uses it without scare quotes in a widespread fashion, then with them sometimes, and only referring to LFTB as as known by its producer LFTB. There have been 6 discussions establishing a widespread consensus that pink slime without any quotes is the only acceptable term. LFTB is a pov propaganda term used rarely by the company that invented it. Velcro is officially hang and grip technology and that is how it is known by the U.S. patent office and the company that makes it but wonder of wonders it is actually only known as Velco by the public and media and that transparency is what matters here. Furthermore I did not create the entry at Wiktionary, I suggested it. That is how Wiktionary works, it was created by a collaboration between multiple parties and wiktionary has incredibly strict inclusion guidelines, people are routinely chastised through blocks for breaking them even on their first edit. The term was debated and meets the requirements for inclusion since it has three or more durable archived uses in print spanning several years of usage. It has been peer reviewed multiple times. Furthermore it was featured as a word of the day whereupon it was again peer reviewed. The definition and format I proposed and it is purported that "I created" is not what is in use as it was not deemed acceptable by the community, a very neutral definition exists. Scare quotes are not acceptable as Wikipedia is not censored and the common name needs to be used, the scare quotes present a non neutral point of view and are just bad form. We must be transparent especially in light of the obvious industry attempts at meddling with their description in our encyclopedia based on the media reports of their products and activities which must be reported as such not as the companies in question would prefer. If they don't want it reported they should keep better secrets or make better products. This is the only honest way to put it and we need to expand and offer a sincerely educational experience here and that is What Wikipedia is.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
No - I am stating as a simple fact that you created the entry on Wiktionary, that no established reliable source dictionary has any such an entry. That you have made at least 29 edits to that entry since you created it on 3 February 2012, and that an entry which is less than a year old is blatantly a neologism. [1] makes clear that editors at Wiktionary consider it a "neologism" as well. That you also created "soylent pink" on Wiktionary on 12 April 2012, that you made 10 edits thereon, and that your definition there was removed by Wiktionary editors. With the comment "correctly noting that it fails RFV". Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There have been 6 discussions establishing a widespread consensus that pink slime without any quotes is the only acceptable term. This is not a correct statement. There have been many discussions, most of them informal and all of them inconclusive, about whether the article should continue to be called "pink slime" or should be moved to "lean finely textured beef". No consensus has ever been established one way or the other; the only formal discussion was closed as "no consensus to move". The issue of using quotes around the phrase "pink slime," or not, has generally not been discussed. There is currently a formal discussion of the article's name at Talk:Pink slime#Requested move and its result is pending. If the article does get moved to LFTB, there will have to be changes in this article. (BTW "Velcro" is not a comparable situation; Velcro is the trade name used by the company that invented and patented it, and it has passed into the language as generic - rather like Scotch tape or Kleenex.) --MelanieN (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep or delete?[edit]

Since Lucifer decided to keep us all in the dark, I'll enlighten everyone: there is a discussion being had at the Village pump. I would appreciate everyone's input. - Sweet Nightmares 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

He may well stay in the shadows - too many "unverifiable" entries at Wiktionary seems to have been his downfall. Collect (talk) 20:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Copy of closed discussion from Village Pump[edit]

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

The material below was copied from a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Pink slime and scare quotes.

    • 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.
    • Comment from closer: Article content should be discussed on the article talk page. The Village Pump is not the appropriate discussion board for this kind of poll. De728631 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The article for pink slime has been the subject of repeated intentional and obvious abuse and NPOV issued as evidenced from masses of pro pink slime propaganda eminating from areas where the product is made that went along with whitewashing of anything "negative" about the product. Nevertheless this was spotted and the article improved to be one of our best, upon repeated and now perennial discussions the consensus has been every time that scare quotes should not be used and that the common name is pink slime. The scare quotes are actually not even used the majority of the time by even the media and are visually distracting and imply a POV that is not needed our readers are smart enough to decide on their own without us telling them to question any of the words used to describe what is produced by BPI as "lean, finely textured beef". However on the article for the company itself, an article that has been repeatedly clearcut in complete support of the company some users or editors many which have proven to be obvious company agents or sympathizers often new, single purpose, or anonymous accounts have insisted on reviving the issue and inserting the scare quotes.

How should this sentence be written? Please select multiple versions in the preferred order of acceptability/compromise or add others:

  • A- It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB), widely known as pink slime.
  • B- It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)
  • C- It is the creator of a product known as pink slime.
  • D- It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB), also known as "pink slime".
  • E- It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as "lean, finely textured beef" (LFTB), known to the general public as "pink slime".

Opinions

  • A, E A is best but I would compromise with E.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:00, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • E- It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as "lean, finely textured beef" (LFTB), known to the general public as "pink slime". — Preceding unsigned comment added by StuRat (talk • contribs) 08:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • E/A. Either quote both terms or neither, IMO. Neither B nor C are acceptable IMO as they each ignore one of the two POVs here. Slight personal preference for E over A, but it really doesn't matter either way. Anomie⚔ 15:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there a bit more evidence behind the scare quotes not being used most of the time in the media? Generally, they seem to write it as though someone else calls it pink slime, I don't think I see it used directly. Darryl from Mars (talk)
  • It is buried on the talk page for Pink Slime, during one of the half dozen discussions on whether it was the appropriate title, those discussions were usually marred by obvious POV accounts related to the industry nevertheless the consensus every time was to keep pink slime in use and not "pink slime". In one of those discussions an excellent editor made an exhaustive list (at the time) of sources using ' pink slime ' versus ' "pink slime" '.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I assume you participated, can you link me to the correct discussion of the six? Darryl from Mars (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for E,D,A (in that order) Do not support B or C.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I think option E is the best, actually. Both are descriptive names, so I'd actually think putting quotes around both is appropriate. It also defeats the "scare quotes" aspect of the argument. Also, the phrase "pro pink slime propaganda" is not something I ever thought I'd read. Resolute 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this be on the article's talk page? --Guerillero | My Talk 22:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • E first choice, A second. Quotes for both or neither. JohnCD (talk) 22:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I don't support the use of of A, B, or C. D is presently my first choice. "Pink slime" is clearly a neologism, and should use quotations to maintain neutrality. "Lean finely textured beef," on the other hand, is a technical term, and that is the main difference. This is the real question: whether the quotation marks appropriate on one term or the other. I am inclined to say that they should be used on "pink slime" (see here) but not on LFTB (see here). Thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares 21:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
But the "technical term" is actually an industry euphemism, designed to hide the fact that meat unfit for human consumption was made acceptable by subjecting it to bleach fumes. Thus, it seems to deserve a comparable treatment with "pink slime". StuRat (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, when you cook meat, all you're doing is taking something unfit for human consumption and subjecting it to deadly levels of heat. "New York Strip" is just a culinary euphemism that deserves a comparable treatment with "carbon shingle". To be clear, you can say whatever you like based on usage in sources, but if you're going to make arguments based on the nature of the substance, you're going to run into problems. Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Bad wording of issue Including implicit and explicit personal attacks on editors who find "pink slime" to be a blatant neologism whose very defintion was placed in Wiktionary by a single Wikipedia editor, of all things. Cheers - the proper place for discussion is in the article talk pages, and not by a forumshopping exercise here. Collect (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment This is about the use of quotes, right? So the variations in 'also known as' or 'widely known as' aren't being considered? Darryl from Mars (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close discussion This is totally the wrong place for this discussion. This is not a proposal for Wikipedia to consider and it does not belong at the Village Pump ("New ideas and proposals are discussed here"). This is a debate which belongs on the article's talk page, Talk:Beef Products Inc. BTW readers should disregard Luciferwildcat's accusations about "masses of pro pink slime propaganda eminating from areas where the product is made" and "obvious POV accounts related to the industry"; these are claims he commonly makes, without any basis or evidence, against anyone who disagrees with his extreme anti-product POV. Likewise, the claim that "new, single purpose, or anonymous accounts" are disputing over this issue is untrue, as a glance at the article's history will demonstrate. --MelanieN (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Close discussion This shouldn't be had here at all. Bot Collect and Lucifer are guilty of edit warring, both appear to have a very strong, opposing POV on this subject matter. SilverserenC 06:34, 8 August 2012 (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.


error[edit]

Request for Comments[edit]

There are three issues involved, listed as A/B, 1/2/3 and Y/Z. On the "1/2/3" issue, there is fairly good agreement that "also known as" is the best choice for the middle part. There is also fairly good agreement on the "Y/Z" issue that 'pink slime' should be in quotes. The "A/B part"--what to do with LFTB--is a lot less clear. In fact I'm getting it to be an exact tie in terms of votes (as I counted them). And given there is really no clear policy as I see it, as a closer I can't impose my view on you all. I'd suggest trying again now that you can focus on only that lone issue. With luck the outcome will be more clear with fewer variables in play. Non-admin close Hobit (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

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.

I'll get the ball rolling here on the talk page. The problem is that we have several available options on how to phrase this apparently controversial sentence, and our current options are the following:
It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as ...


A. lean finely textured beef (LFTB),
B. "lean finely textured beef" (LFTB),


1. also known as
2. widely known as
3. known to the public as


Y. pink slime.
Z. "pink slime."
If anyone has any other suggestions, feel free to add to these propositions.
My choice is A, 1, Z. That is to say I prefer the statement "It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as lean finely textured beef (LFTB), also known as 'pink slime.'" Here's why: according to (non-empirical, very unscientific) Google News queries, pink slime is most commonly used in quotations (see here), while LFTB is not (see here). News reporters most commonly use pink slime in quotations, presumably because they are referring to a word someone else has coined (i.e. it is a neologism). I agree that they are potentially scare quotes, but still believe they are necessary so as to maintain neutrality. Thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares 03:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Scare quotes should pretty much not be used anywhere. They are inappropriate and biased toward one point of view (the one opposing the word in scare quotes). Because of this, the most neutral action is not to use scare quotes. Furthermore, the article should say "also known as" and not "widely known as", since they are equivalent terms. Using widely is an attempt to raise LFTB on a pedestal, which is, again, a POV action. Therefore, A, 1, Y. SilverserenC 06:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I would not use any of those, I would tell the truth and use know in the media as or known publicly as. I would put pink slime in quotes because it is slang/nickname, not the official name used. It does not appear on official documentation within the industry, it is not used officially by the FDA or other governing/administrative bodies, and it is (as i have said many times) POV. Aperseghin (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the term "scare quotes" for these quotation marks. I don't know who dubbed them that, but it is inaccurate. They are simply quotation marks, meaning "so-called" - routinely used to indicate a nickname, or a name that may not be the actual or official name. Examples: Louis "Satchmo" Armstrong, Charles Lindbergh "The Lone Eagle", Babe Ruth "The Bambino", the new London Velodrome called the "Pringle"[2], Qualcomm Stadium aka "The Q", and so on. Let's discuss whether or not to use these quotation marks, but let's be correct about what they are for. It's a media way of saying "so-called", "this is a nickname," "this is not its official name". It's not some kind of POV statement. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
  • A3Y or B3ZLuciferWildCat (talk) 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
  • For the new RfC - I oppose the use of "pink slime" except properly in quotation marks as a neologism not found in any established published dictionary. The legal name for the product as accepted by the USDA is proper here. Collect (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree that the phrase is a neologism, but so is "lean finely textured beef". The phrase is very widely used, and so should be discussed in the article. Suggest using "lean finely textured beef" (LFTB), also known as "pink slime". LK (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • B1Z - let's use quotes for both, since we're using the words as words rather than references to concepts. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 14:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
  • B1Z
    • B: we're talking about the term itself and quotes make that clear.
    • 1: use plain, neutral phrasing
    • Z: we're now talking about the term itself and quotes make that clear.
My own preference would be: It is the producer of lean finely textured beef, also known as "pink slime." but that is not being proposed. Jojalozzo 14:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
By choosing B1Z you seem to be asking for quotation marks around lean finely textured beef, but your sentence illustrating your choice does not use them. Which is your preference? Thanks for any clarification. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for the confusion. I would prefer to replace the sentence start, "It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as", with "It is the producer of". Since that is not a choice I have been offered, I choose B1Z, quotes on both. If I had my druthers I'd have my start of the sentence "It is the producer of" with A1Z, no quotes on first phrase and quotes on second phrase.
My preference within the proposed options:
It is the creator of a product known in the meat industry as "lean finely textured beef" (LFTB), also known as "pink slime."
My own preference outside the proposed options:
It is the producer of lean finely textured beef (LFTB), also known as "pink slime."
Jojalozzo 16:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I prefer Jojalozzo's phrasing foremost, or either A1Z or B1Z from the original options. NULL talk
    edits
    00:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC Response: Both terms shall be used. The first is one created by an organization and used by others in the industry (all industries may at times use terms different from what the general public may use). The latter one is also used by organizations and is certainly a neologism so the expectation that it should appear in a dictionary is a bit pre-mature. Similar to Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names, the technical term may not be the best term for an article title, so too should an article mention what is used frequently in reliable sources. If quotation marks are to be used, they should be applied to both terms equally (this may change in the future after the term(s) have had a longer history of being used). If the reader wants to know more about the terms, they can click on the relevant article, as this article is about a company, not a product. Zepppep (talk) 04:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a supervote that makes no effort at assessing consensus here. I've restored the RFC tag, it was inappropriate to attempt to close it in this way, Zepppep. NULL talk
edits
05:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Please point to a policy or guideline which you feel I was in violation of. If you're wanting to solicit an outside opinion again, I do recommend using neutral language and keeping the solicitation brief. When considering the RfC for this issue, I followed The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view from WP:CONSENSUS so I'm not sure what you mean by "supervote." Additionally, I felt based upon the arguments presented and research I conducted, leaving the term used by the company intact (as this is, after all, an article about a company, not a product) as well as leaving the term used in an overwhelming number of reliable sources and by the general public was also valid (see: WP:COMMONNAME). Zepppep (talk) 06:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
WP:Closing discussions#Consensus is the relevant guidance. "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the administrator's own views about what is the most appropriate policy", "He (or she) is not expected to decide the issue, just to judge the result of the debate". Your response expressed your own view, but what is needed to close the RFC is an assessment of consensus of the existing debate. NULL talk
edits
06:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, I fail to see where my personal views were divulged. That being said, I thought I tossed out some of the arguments wanting to exclude "pink slime" based upon it not being found in a dictionary or only using the "legal" name (using WP:COMMONNAME as my rationale). On the other hand, the entire topic is considered controversial (making perfect consensus unlikely) (simply check out discussions on pink slime) and felt there were valid arguments on both sides, and with that, did not point to any policies or guidelines which favored the use of one term (and use of quotations) over another. (RfC duration is by default 30 days, but there is no minimum or maximum length. I removed the RfC tag after the request had been made more than 3 weeks ago without response, but did not close the discussion. If you'd like to re-insert the RfC tag, however, you're more than welcome. Or if you feel I've consulted inappropriately you may also do the same. In ending, I wish you all luck in the improvement of this article and if there's anything I can leave you with, it's to be civil! Zepppep (talk) 06:39, 31 August 2012 (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.


Close[edit]

I see consensus to put both terms in quotes equally since the legitimacy of both terms is challenged by different stakeholders in this controversy, agreed?LuciferWildCat (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • A consensus is both in quotes
  • B consensus is something else


Um -- of all the people not suposed to close, I think you are in the lead. The only specific clear consensus above is absolutely that "pink slime" is a neologism required to be in quotation marks. And the only "stake" I have is to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Cheers Collect (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

And you shouldn't be saying anything about what the consensus is either, Collect, because you're just as wrong. SilverserenC 04:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Eh? Show me how many folks said "pink slime" should not be in quotes above, please. My count is 2 opposed == Licofer and SilverS. Those clearly opinion number 13 -- inlucing Collect, StuRat, Anomie, Darryl, SPhilbrick, Resolute, JohnCCD, Swee NM, LK, Jarry 1250, Jojalozza and NULL. For some odd reason, I think 13 to 2 is consensus. YMMV. And you comment that I edit warred here is absurd. I have made a total of 16 edits. Lucifer, who wrote a bunch of defs for Wiktionary and was blocked for giving made-up words etc., has edited on this article 52 times. I have 24 edits on the talk page -- Lucifer has 69. And you assert I am "wrong" for suggesting that 13 to 2 is pretty clear? Sheesh! Collect (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Are you basically just ignoring all the people who want both to be in quotes? I'm fine with that version as well. SilverserenC 18:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote -- the only item for which a clear consensus was apparent, and dammned clearly apparent, was about the "pink slime" belonging in quotes. I made no claim about any other consensus or lack of consensus. Is this sufficiently clear? Two and only two editors out of fifteen seemed to think "pink slime" should not be in quotes. The NYT, Washintong Post, LA Times, AP, etc. all use the quotes. Only two editors thought otherwise. And that, I submit, is "clear consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You can't pick and choose among people's opinions and state that, since they partially agree with you, that they form a consensus with your opinion. The people supporting the use of quotes for both are completely separate from the people supporting quotes only for pink slime. SilverserenC 07:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Please read: There is WP:CONSENSUS on using quotes for 'pink slime'. There was no clear consensus on anything else. I trust this is clear - I referred to the one part on which a very clear consensus was apparent to 13 out of 15 editors - which is more than a 6 to 1 ratio. How can you possibly misread my specific and limited statement? Collect (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
I believe 'also known as' also has consensus over the other options for this connecting phrase. NULL talk
edits
00:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Confused about lead[edit]

ok i understand that LFTB is a big toppic, but this article is about the company not LFTB, why is the lead of this article so focused on the product and not the company? how many employees does it have? is it publicly traded? is it family owned? im doing some changes to resolve this issue. basically reorganize the article to make more sense.Aperseghin (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok i made some changes, kept all the content but separated the lead from the products. did not remove any information, just organized it better. if there are any issues please let me know Aperseghin (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because pink slime is their main product, what else do they make? Also its the one of greatest historical significance and the lead of an article should summarize its contents from further down. Regardless the history here is quite incomplete.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Material from another talk page has been added here by an editor who is unaware that doing such is contrary to Wikipedia policy[edit]

Including the fact that readers will think the comments were made on this page, as the history of the comments is lost by such a move. I restored the comments on the original article talk page per Wikipedia guidelines and policies, but will not remove the incorrectly placed material here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I put the copy of the other discussion into its own section, to make it clear what it is and where it came from. --MelanieN (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
I thought it would be relevant to add this here and I did so in good faith, next time I will add in a similar disclaimer. Originally I simply wanted additional unbias input on the whole matter.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
As it is against Wikipedia policy and guidelines to do so, I would ask that you not';' do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I think in this case it's acceptable. Please put your personal differences aside here; this talk page is supposed to be about bettering the article. Moving that discussion here was pertinent and constructive, since the other discussion was closed for being held in an inappropriate place. - Sweet Nightmares 04:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No -- it moves material written by editors into places where it is no longer findable through the edit history trail. That alone is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. Second, it was done, overtly, to get different people's opinions which is Forumshopping directly - the proper procedure is to start an RfC, which was avoided. Third, editing of article talk pages is restricted to certain reasons - and the guidelines are that if anyone objects to edits done for other reasons, that the editing should be undone. Fourth - if one objects to a discussion in one place which was clearly an appropriate place, the moving is not the proper response - one has a host of noticeboards including NPOVN etc. to argue at. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Collect, I'm having trouble understanding your objection. IMO there is nothing wrong with copying the material from another page (where the question should not have been asked) and putting it here on the talk page of the article, where the discussion belonged in the first place. The closing administrator even said the discussion should have been here. Your objection might be valid if he had deleted the section from the Village Pump page, but as far as I can tell he didn't; he simply copied it and pasted it here. I don't know what you mean by saying you "restored the comments on the original talk page". As far as I can see, placing a copy of the discussion here was perfectly acceptable, and there is certainly no need to escalate this minor, topic-specific discussion to RfC or other Wikipedia-wide noticeboard. Please drop this and let's get on with more productive discussions. --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Mea culpa - I saw the deletion at Pink slime and was erroneously concerned that LWC had moved material from one page to another without following WP:C. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

bias[edit]

Parts of this article are just copy and paste from BPI's website, the lead in is word for word from the frontpage of the website. Most of it read more like a press release then an article 66.31.194.76 (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The bias I believe is the other way around. I can easily direct people to reputable source material that dispels the myths and in some case outright lies about this company and it's product. The company disputes the "pink slime" moniker and has sued ABC and others and finds the term offensive - they further state it isn't true and this has been validated by multiple sources. Not some guy handing out on the internet - but, meat scientist, journalists that have filed stories that actually did their homework first, and industry experts. Just as some don't feel inclined to read "press releases" I feel it's imperative that we don't repeat the same false negative information just because some may feel it has a cute name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.199.26 (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC) This page is rife with incorrect and charged wording. Editors should be more even handed when looking at changes and deciding on ammendments to this page. Very inflamatory and false language here. I would change or attempt to - but it's obvious from the previous attempts to corret disinformation here that it would be a moot point. --50.95.87.3 (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2004, Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) was approved for human consumption, having previously been used for pet food and cooking oil[edit]

This isn't accurate - LFTB was approved for ground beef in 1993 by the USDA. LFTB was never used in dog food or cooking oil. Using Jamie Oliver a celebrity chef as a source isn't what I would consider reputable source material for such a statement. I've removed it and I offer these examples as to why it's inaccurate and this page shouldn't be forum to promote propaganda. USDA - http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/76330 http://www.scribd.com/doc/105816180/13/The-USDA%E2%80%99s-1993-Approval-of-Lean-Finely-Textured-Beef http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=697&yr=2012

The source is incorrect - I've more than demonstrated that. This is activist publication and the "powers that be" here are refusing to look at the facts - or have formed an opinion albeit incorrect and aren't being very "neutral. Since I can't access the book and can't verify the source material - I'll have to take someones word it even states this. USDA vs. Fear of Food and we're going with Fear of Food. Really? I've contacted a few libraries and none of them carry it that are within reasonable driving distance. Amazon it is then. I'm going to contact Chicago Free Press and ask them to validate this information from a credible knowledgeable source. I'll advise.

Levenstein, Harvey (2012). Fear of food : a history of why we worry about what we eat. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. pp. 59. ISBN 0226473740.

--66.172.199.26 (talk) 22:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC) I've got a call in to speak with the editor of this book and was advised they would call me once the publisher can track them down. Since when we're comparing sources and mine aren't meeting spec for some odd reason (wonder why?) I'll simply go to the source material myself and point out the inaccuracies. Just because it's published doesn't make it fact based. When someone makes a good faith effort to see to it that facts are represented and this isn't a forum to further propaganda - I would think we would have a common interest in that. Like I wrote earlier...I'll advise. --66.172.199.26 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In 2004, Lean finely textured beef (LFTB) was approved for human consumption, having previously been used for pet food and cooking oil[edit]

This isn't accurate - LFTB was approved for ground beef in 1993 by the USDA. LFTB was never used in dog food or cooking oil. Using Jamie Oliver a celebrity chef as a source isn't what I would consider reputable source material for such a statement. I've removed it and I offer these examples as to why it's inaccurate and this page shouldn't be forum to promote propaganda. USDA - http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/76330 http://www.scribd.com/doc/105816180/13/The-USDA%E2%80%99s-1993-Approval-of-Lean-Finely-Textured-Beef http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-national.php?Id=697&yr=2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.199.26 (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC) --66.172.199.26 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2013 (UTC) This was removed because it isn't accurate. Nothing in the above mentioned sentence is true. --50.95.87.3 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

In July 2011, in the aftermath of an E. coli outbreak in Germany, Beef Products Inc. began voluntarily testing its products for six additional strains of E. coli contamination.[[edit]

BPI doesn't sell LFTB to grinders outside of the united states. Therefore, this information has nothing to do with Beef Products or LFTB. I've removed it for that reason. BPI voluntarily began testing for additional STEC's, or the BIG 6 as they're known in the industry because they choose to - not as a reaction to something in a country that they're beef isn't even consumed in. Please see below for verification. I will gladly point interested parties to more information pertaining to this if need. Thank you.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/bpi-initiates-testing-for-big-6-e-coli-strains/#.UOXAqeSHJ8E --66.172.199.26 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

we related what the reliable sources state, and they place the testing in relation to the Europe outbreak. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC

Now, two major American companies, Costco Wholesale and Beef Products Inc., have gotten tired of waiting for regulators to act. They are proceeding with their own plans to protect customers. Your reliable source

The devastating outbreak of illness in Europe this spring was caused by yet another rare form of E. coli, O104:H4, which investigators say was spread through tainted sprouts. What do sprouts have to do with BPI? It appears you're trying to insinuate that BPI caused the outbreak. The outbreak in Europe had nothing to do with BPI or its voluntary testing. Please don't parse words. --66.172.199.26 (talk) 19:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

We are reporting what the reliable sources are reporting, in a neutral point of view. The source reports that after the e coli outbreak in Europe, BPI (and others) decided to forge ahead with a testing regimen that was not required by the FDA. Your suggested phrasing is completely incompatible with an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not an promotional platform, nor nor a place for someone to make a crusade against inaction by the FDA. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:12, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The FDA has nothing to do with an E coli outbreak in Europe - no jurisdiction - no oversight. I'm not promoting and am only trying to have a fair and balanced article. Nothing more - noting less. It appears you have an agenda. E coli outbreaks in Europe don't belong in this article. You seem to be getting testy - no need for that...--66.172.199.26 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The nature of your edits show clearly that you have promotion of BPI in mind. And yes I get testy when someone with a conflict of interest repeatedly attempts to utilize Wikipedia for self promotion and does not read (or does not comprehend) when they have been directed to how to figure out what qualifies as a reliable source for Wikipedia content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well you should see someone about that. I tend to get testy as well, when I encounter people who can obviously write - but can't read. Strange dichotomy. I'm not looking to promote - I'm looking to prevent others a blank check to slander. I comprehend just fine. I didn't know you were in a position to be directing me to do anything.--66.172.199.26 (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I have zero qualms or concerns about my reaction to Wikipedia being hijacked for commercial promotion. In fact, I am glad and think it is a healthy reaction. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Issues with article[edit]

I'd like to jump in here and try to sort a few things out.

Here's a list of concerns about the article that we need to discuss. Feel free to edit this section and add something if you would like to discuss it. If I've included something that's not in contention, please let us know.

  • The lawsuit being or not being mentioned in the article
  • The product "having previously been used for pet food and cooking oil"

I'll start with the lawsuit. I personally feel that the lawsuit should been mentioned briefly with one or two sentences. There seems to be a case to be had so if ABC reported something that may not be true, that should be mentioned along with what ABC claimed. The product having been use for pet food and cooking oil was made by Harvey Levenstein. He's a "professor emeritus of history at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario" and the book he published this claim in Fear of food : a history of why we worry about what we eat, a book published by The University of Chicago Press. Using Google Books,

I have confirmed that this is stated in the book (although I see it on page 59, not 55). Search the book for "pet food" if you're having trouble finding it. Chuck, if you are who I think you are, I value your expertise here when you say that this isn't true. Even if you aren't who I think you are, to support your claim, we would still need an independent and reliable source that refutes this claim. Do you have any reliable sources that say that it was never used in animal food and cooking oils?

So to be clear, I feel that both sides of the lawsuit should be mentioned briefly and the claim that the product was used in pet food and cooking oil should be included in the article. Does anyone have any reason why that should not be the case? OlYeller21Talktome 18:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I don't think I feel like donating my time here anymore. The page is still on my watchlist but I don't feel the need to put this kind of effort in only to receive no reply of any kind. OlYeller21Talktome 17:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I was tied up my my apologize - I'll re-engage shortly. Thank you for putting this on your watch list and please continue to keep and open dialogue with me. Standby please --66.172.199.26 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) 66.172.199.26 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)--66.172.199.26 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Please consider Meat Scientist (two sources) in a statement provided to FSN http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/03/how-will-bpis-plant-closures-affect-americas-beef/#.UPbY2B2Tl8E - “It disturbs me that the public will listen to the media over someone who does science and research in the area,” Acuff said. “A scientist doesn’t stand a chance against a celebrity news personality, as sad as that is.”

“We need to step up and be the clear-thinking, informed source of information — before it is too late,” they went on, calling on science-minded individuals in the food industry to speak up and defend the science behind LFTB.

“We are sick and tired of the news media hijacking the truth, minimizing science, frightening consumers and creating a false crisis, just to boost their ratings,” they wrote. ”Lean Fine-Textured Beef is not unsafe, deceptive or pet food.” Also, from someone with first hand knowledge of the process please consider Jeremy Russell's expert opinion on the statement in question. http://nmaonline.org/pdf/pr3_8_12.pdf OAKLAND, CA – ABC World News ran a story yesterday focused on the claims of two disgruntled scientists formerly with USDA. These men deride Lean Finely-Textured Beef (LFTB) as nothing but “pink slime.” However, there’s nothing that is scientific or factual about their claims. LFTB is produced using a technology developed and used by Beef Products, Inc. (BPI) to ensure improved safety of beef and beef trimmings. In fact, the company has been recognized by the USDA, consumer safety groups, and food protection organizations for its innovations in food safety, and its lean beef products have undergone rigorous and comprehensive testing. The raw material that the company uses is not scraps destined for pet food. It is Federally-inspected, high-quality beef trim. As agreed upon earlier I will refrain from removing inaccuracies myself, but will make suggestions for changes and support those suggestions with fact based data. Please review and advise. --66.172.199.26 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

As an engineer, I can empathize with experts feeling overridden by laypeople, at least in the eye of the public, so I feel that I understand the issue.
This is starting to sound an awful lot like Climate Change discussions that have happened in the past. A news organization or even a non-climatologist that publishes a study of their own, are used by one side while what we consider "experts" stand on the other side and cite their own findings and the findings of other experts (I'm not saying you're citing yourself but that's part of what happens in CC discussions). Personally, I think it occurs where what are typical reliable sources (CNN, BBC, ABC, etc.) make a claim that may even be "peer reviewed" but those sources and their peers aren't capable of assessing their own claims. In the case of BPI, it seems that this has lead to a lawsuit. At CC discussions, it lead to several Arb Com cases, topic bans of experts and non-experts, and removal of some administrator's privileges (at least one that I know of). You can see a large portion of that case here. I may be mistaken but I believe it was the longest Arb Com case in WP history. At least at the time. It was covered by news organizations and I think a book or two even mentioned the dispute between what they saw as "editors" and "experts". You can see some of that coverage here.
Generally, here at Wikipedia, when there's a disagreement between two sides, we cover both sides. In this case and in the CC case, the argument was made that the other side isn't just an alternate opinion, is baseless and deserves no coverage whatsoever. It sounds likes that's what's happening here.
My gut tells me that it would be synthesis for me to ignore the news coverage regarding the product, at least until the lawsuit is concluded. However, I don't feel strongly about this and believe that we should probably bring more people to the discussion to determine what should be done. I'm a bit busy today but I'll head over to WP:NPOVN (and another board, if I can think of one) and request attention. I'll post a link to those discussions here.
Do you feel that I'm understanding you at this point? Do you feel that this is a good course of action at this time? OlYeller21Talktome 17:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes I do, I would like additional input on a course of action here.Thank you --66.172.199.26 (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

What happened?[edit]

This article used to be half decent. Looks like someone trudged on through and mucked it up again. I give up. - Sweet Nightmares 01:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I think I found the culprit: user 66.172.199.26. I for one would appreciate some more transparency, BPI. I wonder how many red accounts in the history are also controlled by the company. - Sweet Nightmares 02:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything since I advised you that I would work through the talk page. Which I have done. Therefore, you haven't found the culprit. I'm not even sure what recent changes you're fired up about. I've done nothing but try and balance out fact with some peoples fiction. I can verify, backup and prove what I say - write - and cite. I only ask that others do the same. I saw this comment and thought I should respond. 66.172.199.26 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

no need to name all the chains and grocery stores - especially since an incomplete list may mislead readers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a newspaper -- the salient fact is that many chains stopped using a product, not the naming of specific chains where the list is not all inclusive -- thus we may improperly imply to readers that the ones not named still use the product. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

ITT: BPI shill tries to make article more vague using a logical fallacy. - Sweet Nightmares 23:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
"Many" on its own isn't really helpful. While we don't need an exhaustive list, naming the big boys, especially McDonald's and Wal-Mart, illustrates the significance of the media reports and subsequent reaction to public concern. Blackguard 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
If we do not have an exhaustive list - then we do not serve readers. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and the idea that somehow naming three chains is important is silly. And the implication that I have anything at all to do with BPI is inane and fatuous. Cheers -- but this is getting to the point of being a personal attack. Collect (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
There is nothing in that policy that states we should opt for vagueness instead of specifying the major actors involved. That policy exists so that Wikipedia does not take on a journalistic tone; the inclusion of several large (former) clients of BPI does not do any such thing. Otherwise, that policy mainly addresses notability of new articles. Please stop trying to use loopholes in the bureaucracy to push your ideology and instead focus on improving the article for the reader's sake. - Sweet Nightmares 17:45, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
And in the case at hand, "many" is not "vague" and it is not the job of Wikipedia to list every single food chain and grocery store. This is not a matter of "ideology" whatsoever, and I find your snideness and claims that I am a "shill" to violate WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Collect, deleting large sections of text unilaterally is uncalled for. The edits you made have not even been discussed here, so you can hardly claim consensus has been made. As for the separate topic, dealing with the removal of the names of BPI's former clients, there is also no consensus. As a matter of fact, even if there was, it would not be in your favor. I see further up in a discussion about neologisms you also get confused about the meaning of consensus; maybe this can be of some help to you. I'd like to point you specifically to the first bullet point under the "No consensus" heading: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." Please refrain from making further changes until we get a few more voices. As this is not a time sensitive issue, I believe there is no need at present for a RfC; let feedback come in organically. - Sweet Nightmares 00:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Your problem is that Wikipedia generally is not a newspaper. Collect (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

The page has been protected for 3 days so you can talk out your dispute. If the edit warring resumes when protection expires, you will both receive a block. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC[edit]

Should this article enumerate the companies which no longer use or never used the Beef Product "lean finely textured beef"? Collect (talk)

I suggest that the list, which is not exhaustive, is better served by the word "many fast food chains" than a list of five specific companies, and the word "abandon" is less neutral than "cease selling" is. Collect (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you are not supposed to express your opinion when doing a RfC, as clearly indicated in point 3 here. Doing so introduces the potential for cognitive bias.
Secondly, I maintain that making the article less vague does nothing to help the reader's experience. Your constant application here of WP:NOTNEWS is not valid. Given your and others' repeated efforts at censoring anything in this article which casts a negative light on the company—some of which are from BPI's offices themselves—I recommend you read this. I myself have no COI (I don't live in the states, much less work in the meat industry), and I've done a great deal to improve the neutrality, tone, and structure of this article. I count 18 deletions of content in your history on this article, compared to 3 corrections and 4 additions (the latter of which has not exceeded 11 bytes of data). Do you really have a stake in improving this article? I know you'll whip out WP:AGF on me here, but the evidence suggests you do not. - Sweet Nightmares 21:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
No intent to be non-neutral was there -- usually this ends up being the "first comment" and not a part of an RfC depending on how the bot reads the RfC. Cheers. And if you want to see where my "deletions" can lead, look at Joseph Widney which I brought up to "good article" status by removing material. Collect (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Replacing examples of major chains with "many fast food restaurants" is vague and almost meaningless. If you really think a partial list downplays the controversy and "many" would enhance the article, why not: "concern among the public led McDonald's, Burger King, Taco Bell, Wal-Mart, Safeway, and many other fast food chains and grocery stores to abandon the product."
No strong feelings on "ceased using", but I should mention one of the sources uses "abandoned" three times in the article. Blackguard 22:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering that the reader's experience is the prime issue at hand here, I cannot understand why anyone would object to enumerating the companies that no longer use "lean beef" products. However, Sweetnightmares, you may want to watch the tone and attitude of your dealings here with other editors, given that you claim to have no COI in the issue at all. Simply listing out the earnest efforts of other editors here as being negative, is not going to resolve the issue at hand, and will not do anything for improving the dialogue that is being presented here as an effort at consensus. Please no not, and I repeat, do not, divert the discussion from the article to the editors, and do not discuss how committed these editors have or have not been in their efforts. This is clearly not a race nor a tournament at winning brownie points, and considering the seniority of those you are accusing, this is not going to help us arrive at reconciliation of the arguments presented. Sonarclawz (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it should list their names. It is significant content, relevant to the product's notability. It is the very fact that these very erll known identifiable companies used the product that led to the widespread public notice. Had it mean some unspecified "major restaurant chains," it would have had less news value, and also much less permanent interest. These needs to be clarifed not just where it appears in the next but in the last paragraph.(actually the two sections need to be integrated, or the product section needs to appear first.) It should also be stated, not just implied, that production is continuing at Dakota Dunes. In these are good third party sources for major companies with articles in WP who continue to use the product, that is relevant also. I also feel "abandoned" and "cease using" to be equivalents in the context--they give be exactly the same impression. DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Agreed The 'bot asked me to comment so I will. :) Yes, the article would benefit from having company names listed, as well as benefit from dates of when they stopped utilizing the product, if that is possible. There is no good reason not to offer people such information, people who search for the information is better served if the article contains said information, and the general rule of thumb is more information is better than less, provided said information is relevant and, well, informative. Absolutely, include the information. Damotclese (talk) 19:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Closed, as consensus appears to be unanimous in keeping the names of the chains who used to use the product. - Sweet Nightmares 16:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit[edit]

Given there has been a lawsuit by BPI against ABC and there is likely to be a countersuit, should the lawsuit have it's own section, that way as the case winds around, it can be modified or redrafted with less difficulty then if it's in another section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patbahn (talkcontribs) 23:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

a minor redraft[edit]

there is a line that says "Journalists", it may be better to say "Journalists have reported concerns raised by Public Interest advocates such as Food and Water Watch or GAP Food Integrity "


Journalists aren't supposed to leap into stories, they are supposed to be a bit more neutral.--Patbahn (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

a minor redraft[edit]

there is a line that says "Journalists", it may be better to say "Journalists have reported concerns raised by Public Interest advocates such as Food and Water Watch or GAP Food Integrity "


Journalists aren't supposed to leap into stories, they are supposed to be a bit more neutral.--Patbahn (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2014 (UTC)