*'''Comment''' A picture is worth a thousand words, so... [[Image:Stewmeat.jpg|thumb|right|the intended mental image of "boneless lean beef trimmings"]] [[Special:Contributions/71.46.230.154|71.46.230.154]] ([[User talk:71.46.230.154|talk]]) 00:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' A picture is worth a thousand words, so... [[Image:Stewmeat.jpg|thumb|right|the intended mental image of "boneless lean beef trimmings"]] [[Special:Contributions/71.46.230.154|71.46.230.154]] ([[User talk:71.46.230.154|talk]]) 00:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
**Evidence, please? Those are clearly not "trimmings". [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
**Evidence, please? Those are clearly not "trimmings". [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] <sup><small><small>[[User talk:LtPowers|T]]</small></small></sup> 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
***They look like "trimmings" to me. Pink slime does not look like "trimmings" at all. In a thesaurus, you won't find "trimmings" as a legitimate synonym for puree. [[Special:Contributions/208.118.18.229|208.118.18.229]] ([[User talk:208.118.18.229|talk]]) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:::[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/27/governors_to_tour_plant_where_pink_slime_is_made/ This article] has a file photo of pink slime as provided by Beef Products, Inc. The image on the right is just stew meat. [[User:Gobonobo|<font face="DejaVu Sans" color="333300">Gobōnobo</font>]] [[User_talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
:::[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2012/03/27/governors_to_tour_plant_where_pink_slime_is_made/ This article] has a file photo of pink slime as provided by Beef Products, Inc. The image on the right is just stew meat. [[User:Gobonobo|<font face="DejaVu Sans" color="333300">Gobōnobo</font>]] [[User_talk:Gobonobo|<sup>+</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Gobonobo|<sup>c</sup>]] 03:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I think that is exactly the point: the euphemism is designed to make people think they are getting ground up stew meat. [[Special:Contributions/208.118.18.229|208.118.18.229]] ([[User talk:208.118.18.229|talk]]) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Yes. There is a clear understanding of what image is meant by the term 'pink slime', it is visible in your search. The ground beef image is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chockyegg (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Excuse me, ground beef images are indeed relevant, if you think otherwise then you obviously have a bias against lean beef trimmings that most likely came from a highly biased, self-seeking abc news reporter in order to sell his or her story on lean beef trimmings to further his or her career at the cost of others. You're not going to find a picture of "pink slime" because there is no actual "Pink slime". All it is is lean beef taken from what was trimmed off with the fat, separated from the fat, then cleaned with ammonia. Post a picture of lean beef.[reply]
Agreed that it virtually promotes "Pink Slime" - the concerns that originated the term are relegated to a brief "Controversy". I have corrected the misleading characterization of the NYT editorial as a "retraction" - but the whole thing needs fixing. LL. 64.134.142.61 (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeup. it's pretty obvious. the "what it is" has been intermingled and suffused with "what people think about it". classic sign of NPOV. Decora (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came to wikipedia for clarification after coming across the term "pink slime" elsewhere, and was startled by the tone of the article. Identifying the term "pink slime" as "derogatory" is fair enough, but the rest of the article reads like an industry press release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.6.57 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's incredibly biased, I agree, but in my view from the other point of view. It does not at all sound to me like something BPI would have written. The very fact that it does not redirect to "boneless lean beef trimmings" and instead sticks with the "Pink Slime" label seems to me that there is bias against it. In my opinion, it is gross, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the article. The term "pink slime" is used a number of times throughout the article in a manner that seems to lend legitimacy to the term when it is, after all, a term coined only recently by one doctor/author. In my view, the entire article should be removed and the entry "pink slime" redirected to "boneless lean beef trimmings" (an article that does not yet exist) in order to maintain some element of neutrality. My recommendation would be to create a stub for "boneless lean beef trimmings", redirect "pink slime" to it and then delete this current article in its entirety and start over. Some things are not fixable and this article is one. - jonnyhabenero — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnyhabenero (talk • contribs) 09:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the bias. Just because there are facts that can be considered to be "good" doesn't mean it's biased. Perhaps the other posters came to Wikipedia looking for a "pink slime bashing" but instead were confronted with dry facts; some of which did not support their preconceptions. And why would anyone have to state that referring to a term as derogatory (at least in this sense) is "fair enough". Of course it's "fair enough" because it's the truth. It's as if you didn't want the article to say it's derogatory lest it remind people that there is a real name for it with neutral connotations and thus indicate that maybe it's not as bad as it sounds.
I don't care what the title is, that falls under WP:commonname, but common name protection does NOT extend to the article content, and "Pink Slime" is neither the industry used term, nor a neutral term, and the use of said term should be stricken from this article. This is an encyclopedia for god's sake. Rip-Saw (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is actually being caused by sensationalism and the public ignorance of how sausage has been made for thousands of years. Anyone who is familiar with sausage making and food science would be impressed by the reaction more than the process.RichardBond (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"An episode of Jamie Oliver's Food Revolution depicted his interpretation of the production process, in which Oliver douses beef trimmings in liquid ammonia in front of parents."
Either, by liquid ammonia, they mean "ammonia dissolved in water" or I find this highly unlikely. It would be very hazardous for someone to douse anything in liquid ammonia (see "anhydrous ammonia" on Wikipedia which should just be under "ammonia") in the open and in front of other people. Could someone who knows about this show tell us what exactly Oliver did so this can be resolved?
Either way, the end result is ammonium hydroxide. Most likely they do start with anhydrous liquid ammonia, possibly shipped in via rail car. (alternately, they make ammonia on site) Once allowed to boil, it becomes ammonia gas. Once added to water, such as the water that naturally occurs in cattle, you get ammonium hydroxide. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Boneless lean beef trimmings are similarly politically charged as Pink Slime is. BLBT merely happens to be a industry euphemism, a la corn sugar or mountaintop mining. The public parlance in discussion of the process (rather than merely how it appears on meat wrappers) is Pink Slime. I would love a name that's less charged, but the name of "beef trimmings" is charged, and not the term in use, whereas in media articles surrounding the subject, Pink Slime is. At the least, Pink Slime needs to be near the top of the page. We need to use those terms that are in use in the lexicon, most users who get to this page will get here through searching for "Pink Slime" not "Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings" --Monk of the highest order(t)10:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment BLBT is at the very least descriptive. "pink slime" is WP:JARGONy. If we had to choose something, I can atleast use English grammar to parse BLBT to take it to mean that it is lean beef without bone that is waste bits from other beef products. I've found "pink slime" in toy stores... so "pink slime" doesn't have instant clarity. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (1) current title is WP:commonname per article Impact of pH enhancement of populations of Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in boneless lean beef trimmings. Journal of Food Protection 66:874-877. (2) in any case proposal should be to pink slime per WP:CAPS (3) but "pink slime" is a term from the paper and pulp industry. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move elsewhere like Pink slime controversy, since this article is not so much about the food product itself, but rather about the controversy over it. There's a clash between (a) those who promote it (mainly for profit? heedless of the dangers?) and (b) those who oppose it (because it's slimy? and not a "real" food? and it's tainted with poison, i.e., ammonia?) and and protest the coverup. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think "pink slime" is still a neologism: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." PowersT14:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough I take issue with In Ictu Oculi's implication that the most common, prevalent name can be divined solely from the name used in academia. That defies the policy they linked to and would imply that academic terms, inaccessible as they may often be, should always be used in lieu of layman's terms on wikipedia. Powers has a good point, though, in that the term Pink Slime came after a long history of the use of the term BLBT, even if by a smaller community. However, I do think that because the term Pink Slime has seen conspicuous use as a name used in the press and in discussions of the subject, it does need to be explained to be a sometimes-synonym in the first paragraph. --Monk of the highest order(t)16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree We must accept that the English language evolves. "Pink slime" is the common term. Using BLBT would be like using DHMO or H2O for water. Probably due to a youtube video, everybody knows of this stuff as "pink slime". I'm betting that, privately, the food scientists who design the stuff even call it pink slime. BLBT is an industry euphemism right from the start, even if it is the older term. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly! "Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings" is intentionally designed to make you imagine something like chunks of steak for stir-fry, kabobs, or stew. In no way does the term suggest the true nature of this stuff, which really does look like pink slime. Everybody, aside from industry apologists, is calling it pink slime. The news media calls it pink slime. Even Publix calls it pink slime. You could as well say that "water" is nondescriptive, and that we should rename the water article to "dihydrogen monoxide". 208.118.18.229 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. However, the (unfortunately correct) term is obviously a complete propagandistic whitewash from the meat industry, and should be described as such. and the neologism is MUCH more widely used, and should be described as the common term, not just as a neologism, which smacks of triviality. Industry is very scared, as you can see from this article, where the image donated by the meat industry for "Boneless lean beef trimmings" is in fact... hamburger! see, harmless! and big black floating specks are good for you...Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Requested move from Pink slime to Boneless lean beef trimmings
A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.
Support per the previous discussion. "Pink slime" is WP:JARGON and there are many things that are pink slime, including toy products. "boneless lean beef trimmings" is descriptive, and backed up by reliable sources that have existed for many years, as indicated in the previous RM discussion. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason an article title can't be a neologism, but seeing as it was coined in 2002, it's hardly new anyhow. You say that it's potentially ambiguous and not encyclopedic, but don't indicate why it wouldn't be encyclopedic or how it might be ambiguous. Gobōnobo+c00:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no age limit on neologisms; even a ten-year-old term can be a neologism if it's only recently come into public consciousness. WP:NEOLOGISM doesn't prohibit neologisms as article names, but it does discourage them. It's potentially ambiguous because there are many other things that are pink and slimy; it's unencyclopedic because it's a slang term being used for negative emotional effect rather than a term actually used by specialists in the field. PowersT17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for elaborating. WP:NEOLOGISM does discourage articles on neologisms, but doesn't say anything about using neologisms as article titles. WP:TITLE is also quiet on neologisms. I don't see any evidence that the term is being used for negative emotional effect though. Gobōnobo+c02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, which states "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms." Boneless lean beef trimmings is industry terminology and doesn't convey the primary distinguishing factor of the product - that it is treated with ammonia. I would support a move to Ammoniated beef trimmings or something similar.Gobōnobo+c00:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they refer to it as "'pink slime'", with quotation marks. That's a strong indication that it's a neologism. But anyway, I wasn't talking about "pink slime", I was talking about "ammoniated beef trimmings" which you said you supported. PowersT17:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. You're right that we should use a title used in reliable sources. I've struck that part of my comment, but I'd support a middle ground type of term, if it existed. Gobōnobo+c22:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, plus the proposed alternative being purely public relations marketing nonsense. The proposed alternative isn't even standard; the industry uses several names which all sound like chunks of meat larger than ground beef. (company-specific trademarks?) If we did want something more descriptive, "disinfected beef gristle puree" would be about right. BTW, it is very important to remember that paid PR people are out in force for this one. It wouldn't surprise me if more than half of the people editing this article are being paid to solve what may be an existential crisis for the companies involved. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME, if we have to choose between an industry propaganda term and the commonly-used slang for the substance. Google hits alone aren't sufficient grounds for keeping an incorrect name, but it's still worth noting that there are 3,780,000 Google hits for "pink slime" vs 206,000 results for "Boneless lean beef trimmings". Scopecreep (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But isn't "Boneless lean beef trimmings" also POV? It is vague industry terminology that is arguably being used to whitewash. WP:TITLECHANGES says that "Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged." The policy goes on to say that if "no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub." Gobōnobo+c02:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Common Name is a policy - but NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. It's obvious we must choose Pillar over Policy when the two conflict. Rklawton (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agreed that something less POV than "pink slime" is needed, but this proposal is for "Boneless lean beef trimmings", which implies that it's some nice, cut-up beef, so both titles are POV. A new name needs to be proposed that doesn't propagandize for or against, and is in actual use somewhere. I haven't thought of one found one yet, but if someone here could, then I'd support a rename to that. Scopecreep (talk) 16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have evidence that "pink slime" is actually more commonly used in reliable sources than the actual technical term? PowersT17:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Scopecreep. It would be nice if there were a name that wasn't a pejorative or euphemism, but in the absence of such a word, majority rules. --BDD (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose Although the title falls under common name protection, it is a colloquial name. I also support that "pink slime" is neologic in nature. That being said, I do not feel like any other name for this article would qualify as neutral and jargon free. This is one of those cases where Wikipedia should come up with its own term to use as a name for the article, one that is both neutral and technically accurate; policy does not support such actions, however. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you read all the academic literature, all the technical manuals, etc., you'll see that the actual WP:COMMONNAME is Lean Finely Textured Beef. Pink Slime may have been coined in 2002, but it wasn't commonly used to identify the substance until recent media coverage. ɳorɑfʈ Talk!21:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They look like "trimmings" to me. Pink slime does not look like "trimmings" at all. In a thesaurus, you won't find "trimmings" as a legitimate synonym for puree. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 07:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is VERY controversial. The media (as of the time of this note being added) is involved with an obvious demonetization of this product.
The OPINIONS need to be removed. There can be a section for "Controversy" to cover such things, but the FACTS need to be FACTS and the sources need to be reliable.
The FDA has done studies on this product, and deemed it safe for consumption. The process and treatment of the product has also bee scrutinized. It looks gross and the process sounds horrible, but its no worse the Hot Dogs and slim-jims or other Mechanically separated meat.
You created your account just last month, so you aren't any more "real" than me and my IP address. No normal person would use the word demonetization except in jest. It's beyond even buzzword bingo. Convince me you aren't paid to promote this gunk. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
look at my other edits, they have nothing to do with this. i did use the word in jest but i believe it to be true. Im not advocating the rampant use of "leftover scraps" as a staple in everyone diet, but im not blind to whats going on. Meat is meat, ammonia seems to be the issue here but as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Antimicrobial_agent_for_food_products, its a subject that has been discussed over and over. The current article is very negative and lacking information about the actual process, how and why the ammonia is used and it needs to be renamed as "Pink Slime" is very ambiguous. all im saying here is that WikiPedia is a place for facts not opinions.Aperseghin (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pink Slime" and "Advanced meat recovery" are one and the same. There is no evidence that "Pink slime" is the common name (as opposed to common slang). "Pink slime" is blatant NPOV. NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia. Even if "Pink slime" were the common name (thus falling under the common name policy), Wikipedia's NPOV pillar trumps ordinary policy. The history of the name "Pink slime" indicates it is obviously part of a POV campaign, so there is no doubt here that the name fails our NPOV tests. Thus, we should redirect this article to AMR and add a section to that article outlining this new controversy. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are MANY other articles on the mechanical separation of meat that this information fits better. The Pink Slime Controversy may warrant an article but purely to inform people that it happened, why it happened and what the social and media issues were. Aperseghin (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - are there reliable sources that specifically cover the "renaming" and "trashing"? We can't SYNTH our own from articles that actually do the trashing. Note, too, that this article isn't about the campaign to denigrate the product, it's primarily about the product. Lastly, a renaming/trashing article would need an article name that indicates the subject is the campaign. "Pink slime" alone doesn't do it. Maybe "Pink slime product attack" or something like that. Rklawton (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAdvanced meat recovery is a much older article, has a more robust history of usage according to google, is descriptive, not jargon, not colloquial and not neologic. More importantly, pink slime does not deserve its own article. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support moving this article into Mechanically separated meat. I would also like to add that greater than 50% of the searching I am doing has "pink slime" in quotes in the article. It seems that the general public is well-aware of the colloquial nature of the term, and so should Wikipedia. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The premise of this proposal is erroneous. In the Products section of Advanced meat recovery six different products are named, one of them, Lean Finely Textured Beef, being identical to the present subject. Thus, Pink slime is one of at least six different products stemming from advanced meat recovery processes. Also, nominator clearly acts with a (not so) hidden agenda, attempting to get rid of the name of the present article, which is fine, but don't pretend this nomination isn't simply about that, so keep the renaming discussion where it belongs in a previous section on this talk page! __meco (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. They are not one and the same. Advanced meat recovery is a process that may result in six distinct products, one of which is pink slime/LFTB/BLBT. There is enough sourced content here to warrant a standalone article. Gobōnobo+c22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from butcher beef trimmings?
Fact: NPOV is a pillar. Fact: "Pink slime" is POV. Fact: NPOV trumps WP:COMMONNAME (Note especially: This page explains in detail the considerations on which choices of article title are based. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies: Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view.). Fact: this article title will be changed or redirected. So the question we really need to ask here is "What name shall we change this article to?". I suggest we list suggestions below. Remember, not changing this article's name is not an option. Editors opposing all suggestions are invited to either make a proposal for a title name of their own or their objections will be discounted accordingly. I realize this sounds a little blunt, but Wikipedia does not compromise on its pillars. Rklawton (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From your own user page, "Ugly satisfies NPOV when it is true." Besides the WP:COMMONNAME issue, pink slime is in fact pink slime. Is it pink? Yes indeed. Is is slime? Yes indeed. We could invent some pedantically descriptive term like "disinfected beef gristle puree" but I doubt that would satisfy you. It's NPOV, but you might have difficulty seeing that if you don't like to admit the truth about this product. The product really does involve disinfection, beef gristle, and puree. In short, it's pink slime. It's most definitely not anything like the manufacturer euphemisms that are suggestive of chunks of steak like you'd use in fajitas, stew, kabobs, and stir-fry. NPOV terminology for something yucky will sound yucky. Anything less is an attempt to hide the yuck. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pink slime" is a term only used by one side, that makes it POV. Even ABC News which broke the story acknowledges that it's the term is used by the "critics". Now go take your activism somewhere else. Rklawton (talk) 01:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a term is only used by one "side" or is used by critics, that doesn't necessarily make it POV and it certainly doesn't automatically disqualify the term as an article title. I believe that warning editors that their objections will be discounted is inappropriate here - editors are welcome to object to a move without proposing an alternative. I believe the applicable policy to consider is WP:POVTITLE which, in my mind, could be interpreted either way. The move discussion taking place above is active and is probably the best place to bring policy-based concerns. Gobōnobo+c02:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
