:Agreed; if the industry term is thought too favourable (can't see how "pink slime" could be more unfavourable!), a purely descriptive title would be better. [[User:Praetonia|Praetonia]] ([[User talk:Praetonia|talk]]) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:Agreed; if the industry term is thought too favourable (can't see how "pink slime" could be more unfavourable!), a purely descriptive title would be better. [[User:Praetonia|Praetonia]] ([[User talk:Praetonia|talk]]) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::While I agree with you that a purely descriptive title would be better, it would not be [[WP:Commonname|policy]]. I certainly disagree with the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy on the grounds of it not being technical enough, but since it is policy, we should stick with it. [[User:Rip-Saw|Rip-Saw]] ([[User talk:Rip-Saw|talk]]) 23:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
::While I agree with you that a purely descriptive title would be better, it would not be [[WP:Commonname|policy]]. I certainly disagree with the [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy on the grounds of it not being technical enough, but since it is policy, we should stick with it. [[User:Rip-Saw|Rip-Saw]] ([[User talk:Rip-Saw|talk]]) 23:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
:::Commonly used by whom? A certain section of the media commonly refers to the US Tea Party as 'teabaggers', but that plainly wouldn't be an appropriate article title even if enough people used it that it became more common than the official name.
:::The [[WP:COMMONNAME]] itself states:
:::"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
:::Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
:::Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"
:::'Pink slime' would seem to be excluded by both criteria.
Revision as of 09:00, 12 April 2012
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section
Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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
An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
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]
Ground beef is inaccurate, as pink slime cannot be sold on its own, and whatever best illustrates it in its pink sliminess along the production line or the frozen brick finished product would be much better as it is 100% pink slime, and not the ground beef that is 85% traditional beef with 15% pink slime filler.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe traditionally this type of meat by-product was referred to in the industry (and by its critics) as "cows' lips and assholes". I assume pictures of cow lips and cow anuses would aptly do in place of the finished brick-like "pink slime" product. 75.62.128.148 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[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]
I've removed the assertion from the lede that ABC News popularized the term in March 2012, as I can find use of the term in online news from as early as Jan. 2010 so far: [1], [2], [3]. Scopecreep (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well here in the UK we don't watch ABC News much, so they did little to popularize it here or in the rest of the English-speaking world. Here's a Fox News reference that says the term was coined in 2002 by Food Safety Inspection Service microbiologist Gerald Zirnstein [4]. Scopecreep (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lede is a summary of the article and does not need every reference with supports it provided the information in the article is referenced. It is understandable that you don't fully appreciate the role ABC News plays in the United States. User:Fred BauderTalk13:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
English Wikipedia isn't only for a US audience though, and who did most to popularize a term recently in one country isn't as important as when it was first used, and how long it's been in use. Note that there's already a NYT reference in the article from 2009 using the term [5].
Widespread disgust and abandonment of the product in the United States clearly resulted from the ABC News feature. What is happening worldwide is an interesting question. Is the term pink slime being widely used in the UK. What happens when you search The Guardian or BBC? User:Fred BauderTalk13:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole history section in the article, detailing mainstream use of the word between 2009 and 2011 with references. If references can be found linking a drop in the use of the product worldwide in 2012 linked to the ABC News programme, then that should be added. Otherwise it's just guesswork as to when and how the term was most recently popularized. Scopecreep (talk) 13:39, 28 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
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was not moved. Nine editors have voiced support for a move, generally asserting that the current title is POV; fourteen editors have voiced opposition for a move, citing WP:COMMONNAME and asserting that the proposed move target is POV. There is clearly no consensus to move this article to the proposed title. 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. bd2412T02:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The proposed alternative is ambiguous. It could mean stew meat. This is in fact purposeful confusion that Wikipedia should not propagate. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:48, 29 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]
Claiming the term was "designed" to deceive seems to be drifting into the realm of conspiracy though. That attitude seems to be more indicative of lack of education rather than a conspiracy being true. With even a little background in beef cuts from our own farm, I definitely don't think of nice chunks of stew when I hear boneless lean beef trimming. The focus on "trimming" is more indicative of small pieces of meat separated from fat that wouldn't otherwise be used. One issue could be that people use the term to describe the end product, when it's actually better at describing the process the meat has undergone. Maybe that's where the confusion comes up for folks not as familiar with meat processing? Kingofaces42 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you have no conception of what "trimmings" are. Those are clearly large chunks of intact meat cut to a specific size. Trimmings are leftover pieces, the remnants of the process that produced the chunks in your photo. (And the fact that the trimmings are later "pureed" is irrelevant to whether they were trimmings to begin with.) PowersT19:54, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The term "pink slime" is WP:JARGON and WP:ACTIVIST, and definitey is not WP:NPOV. It's a perjorative used in activist propaganda. The actual name of the product is the only proper title for this article. Alternatively, I'd support redirecting to "advanced meat recovery," per discussion below, with a new section in that article titled "pink slime controversy" or something of the like. Wikophile (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Scopecreep, in this Hobson's choice. I would also agree generally that euphemistic names like "lean finely textured beef" are non-NPOV. Maybe "pureed and sterilized beef scraps" would be neutral?... "Pink slime" seems to be it at this point, per WP:COMMONNAME. ENeville (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to cite Common Name, then you must change your vote to support because Common Name very specifically excludes POV titles. Rklawton (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support move It doesn't have to be this title, but the current one is not Neutral. Having a neutral article (especially a title, which is the first thing many see) trumps Commonname. Particularly when it is the result of media sensationalism. We should be better than that here. On top of that "Pink Slime" is ambiguous, wheras "Boneless lean beef trimmings" is not. AIRcorn(talk)22:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, "Boneless lean beef trimmings" is more ambiguous. It's an obscure phrase that intentionally sounds like chunks of meat suitable for stew, stir-fry, fajitas, and kabobs. The "pink slime" term by itself, ignoring the now well-known meaning, does not suggest anything incorrect. No false expectations are created. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then change it to something else ("Processed beef trimmings" mentioned below would be fine). To me pink slime suggests some kind of colourful mould or algae. AIRcorn(talk)03:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: A COMMONNAME issue, pure and simple; I wager that the number of Google hits for "pink slime" outnumbers all the other monikers combined by a wide margin. Nor do I remotely swallow the "neutral POV" argument. For one thing, a "boneless lean beef trimmings" or other such euphemistic name is scarcely "neutral," since it caters to the meat industry's party line in this matter. For another, "pink slime" was not coined by opponents of the substance, but by the industry itself; if the industry's PR flacks now regret it, that is not our problem.
Comment According to that logic, the title of the article should then be "Pink Slime". The number of hits in google using scare quotes exceeds the number not. Rip-Saw (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not ready to !vote yet, but I would like to point out that the best way to avoid having your product labeled as "pink slime" would probably be to make a product that isn't composed of bits of spinal cord/misc protein/etc that resembles pink slime. What ever we end up with as the title, this stuff is gross on so many levels. I'm leaning towards opposing right now but I'm going to put some thought into it and see if I can come up with an alternative proposal. SÆdontalk03:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The vast majority of sources that use Pink slime do so within Scare quotes. That either means that they agree it is a misnomer or more likely that they want to distance themselves from the name. Not something strong to base commonname on. AIRcorn(talk)04:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because this product is not a trimming. It is produced through a rendering process, not a trimming process. It would be almost as inaccurate as calling lard a trimming. - Hoplon (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Common Name specifically PROHIBITS the use of POV article names even if they would otherwise qualify as the common name. Those of you citing Common Name as the only reason for "Oppose" should accordingly change your votes to Support per Common Name. Rklawton (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't cite Commonname myself, but even so: whether an article name is POV is a matter of opinion and thus consensus. Your comment is fine as a suggested response, but it doesn't mean others' views are somehow invalid. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's a term created by an opponent of the process and used by critics. That makes it POV. What the beef industry calls “lean finely textured beef” (LFTB) and critics call “pink slime” is a filler byproduct that is made by running scraps from meat cuttings through a processor that removes the fat from the trimmings. The beef is usually treated with ammonia to kill bacteria such as E. Coli and salmonella, a process that has been a subject of suspicion and debate despite claims that it is harmless.[6] And, of course, it's obvious to any casual reader that it's POV. Lastly, there won't be a consensus when activists and new users are involved in blocking it - citing a policy they obviously haven't read. Remember, NPOV isn't just policy, it's a pillar, and it's only a matter of time before a journalist pillories Wikipedia for its activism. Rklawton (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it is POV. It is the common name that is known by the people of the US (and likely the world) for the subject. It has become the common vernacular for the topic. Even if it was POV in the past, it has become a normal word now that is a part of common culture and that cannot be changed. So common name dictates that we follow the name that it is known as. SilverserenC20:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, we've got sources that specifically say it's a term used by one side. You have no sources that say it's neutral. Common Name specifically forbids POV article titles. In short, your opinion isn't based on Reliable Sources and that's contrary to how Wikipedia operates. We don't edit based on people's opinions, we edite based on reliable, verifiable sources, and we do it in a neutral way. This article's title clearly represents only one side and runs against Wikipedia's core principles. If all you've got is "your opinion" - then you have no basis at all for keeping this name. Rklawton (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia is not the place to debate or attempt to legislate events in the United States or anywhere else. The title "pink slime" is clearly a common term used by an overwhelming amount of coverage for this topic, and should therefore remain the title of this article. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)03:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case, the common nickname "pink slime" is so widely used by Reliable Sources that it is the obvious title for this article. The industry name has no usage or name recognition outside of the industry itself. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Either choice is POV: Obviously there is no neutral term to describe this phenomenon. In this case, we should opt for the more common term. --RJFF (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – The article title is specific to how numerous reliable sources refer to the topic, as "pink slime." Additionally, per WP:COMMONNAME, a Wikipedia policy, the article's title is correct per Wikipedia's standards. Northamerica1000(talk)23:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added both of the industry's preferred names in bold to the lead sentence -- and the industry term (the proposed target of this move) is already a redirect to this article, so it will seamlessly bring any searchers for that (rather unlikely IMO) search term to the article. I submit that this gives enough recognition to the industry's preferred usage. IMO we should quit haggling about what to call the article and work instead on improving it and keeping it neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Move Just because it is a common term doesn't mean it is the correct term. Since the media has shown bias in using the term 'Pink Slime' and has been the driving force behind its name doesn't make it right. At best its a derogatory term that couldn't be more POV. Some media outlets have even started to say 'what critics call pink slime'. This also shows a shifting tide in the perception of proper terminology. Also more credible scientist and educators refer do to it as LFTB. Simply redirecting BLBT and LFTB to this article only adds to its bias nature. Also BLBT and LFTB are 2 different products by industry standards that should be clarified. BLBT is produced without ammonia while LFTB is produced with ammonia.67.212.109.85 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't mind what the article is called, but I feel the article contains too many repetitions of pink slime, which is derogatory, slang, imprecise, and seems to violate NPOV.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Sources and facts
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]
Funny how this whole tangent is written with orders for us, talking down to us, that they will allow us to have a "controversy" section while incessantly repeated talking points about opinions and facts, for a product only known as pink slime and made up of sanitized rectums, there's probably shit in it too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but I'd just like to point out that "Pink slime" and "Sanitized rectums" are metal songs just crying out to be written. Scopecreep (talk) 09:53, 30 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 is not at all ambiguous, it is the prevailing term for this product, and it is the only term not promoted by this company. Only the idiotic spokeswoman for pink slime says "meat is meat" over and over again, like the high fructose corn syrup lobby keeps insisting sugar is sugar, or the spokeswoman for santorum keeps say "he is pro life" when asked questions like "where did he get his information that 10% of dutch are euthanized / against their will / are you going to answer"? Meat is meat but this article is not the meat article it is the pink slime article. If it were meat it would be able to be sold as meat, but it can't be, in fact it is illegal to sell it as meat even according to Beef Products own website it is only legal as an additive to ground beef.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:02, 30 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]
Comment Yes, although I observed the event, which seemed to originate on ABC News, although it originated in a chance comment by the whistleblower, coverage by Wikipedia depends on coverage in reliable sources. I would look in the public relations press for that; although, the NYT's article might serve to some extent. User:Fred BauderTalk11:52, 28 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]
Conditional support Since, as Gobōnobo points out, pink slime is one of six distinct products, if all six could be covered in sections of advanced meat recovery without making the article too large, then I would support merging there. And if, following that, there's sufficient content (referenced from reliable sources etc.) to split off from that to a separate article on the "pink slime controversy" in the press, then I'd support that too. 09:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Oppose pink slime is the only lingua franca term for this product, all the three word and four word terms are deceptive corporate euphemisms for this product and the companies themselves are probably pushing for a name change here on wikipedia or their stockholders and supporters and that is unconscionable. Finely textured lean beef is a sentence and it is not pink slime, fecal mattered covered rectal and disgestive tissues in addition to centerfuge separted spinal cord protein bits sanitized with poison ammonia hydroxide gas is pink slime.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Please be aware that up until recently the Advanced meat recovery article contained an error where it suggested that LFTB was a product produced by AMR. This is incorrect. AMR is process where meat is mechanically separated from bone. It is in effect a sort of trimming process. LFTB is, in comparison, a rendering process (not a cutting or trimming process). The two are distinctly separate and the USDA treats AMR and LFTB as completely separate classes of products. - Hoplon (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Advanced meat recovery involves obtaining skeletal meat from several different animals without the controversial use of ammonia gas, whereas pink slime is specifically a food-based additive that is in part derived from using ammonia hydroxide gas, which chemically changes to ammonium hydroxide when it comes in contact with moisture in the meat. (Some processors use citric acid instead of ammonia gas.) The resulting product, pink slime, is then added to ground beef as a filler. Also, this article's title is specific to how numerous reliable sources refer to the topic, as "pink slime." Northamerica1000(talk)23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this AMR product clearly has enough notability to stand on its own. Merging the content of this article into AMR would be silly; compare the article lengths. The status quo, whereby each article includes the other in its "See also" section, is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is this different from butcher beef trimmings?
The AMR article was in error. LFTB (aka Pink Slime) is unrelated to AMR. In fact, some in the AMR community questioned why LFTB received special treatment and is allowed in USDA ground beef while AMR trimmings are not. - Hoplon (talk) 22:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally this type of meat, and where it's cut from, is informally referred to as "cows' lips and assholes". It's not really meat as we think of it, it's the last disgusting dregs of the remains of a smelly dead carcass. In its traditional processed form, we call it "hot dogs" and "luncheon meats". Ask anyone who works at a slaughterhouse. 75.62.128.148 (talk) 17:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This type of meat comes from all different parts of the cow, not just 'lips and assholes'. The trimmings that are used are typically high fat around 70%, but BPI has purchase trimmings as low as 10% fat which are the same trimming used to make regular ground beef. They also make primal specific LFTB as well. So it would be hard to continue to refer to the trimmings as low grade or scrap when its not.67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New question
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]
Both "Lean Finely Textured Beef" and "Boneless Lean Beef Trimmings" are terms only used by one side. No reasonable person would agree that those terms are honest descriptions of the product. Though obviously icky-sounding, "pink slime" is at least an honest description of the product. It's also unquestionably the common term. 208.118.18.229 (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion as an outsider who just saw this is that this article is and should be about pink slime, as defined by those who have coined the term. It may be that there should be an article about "lean beef trimmings", as defined by the industry, something which may have some overlap with pink slime. But inevitably there will also be differences between the two. We can't and shouldn't try to have one article about two categorizations of meat as defined by ideological opponents for opposing tactical advantages. That's not NPOV, it's just a nightmare. Make this article about "pink slime", but be clear about the disputed nature of the term (given sources, that is). Wnt (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Something like "Pink slime controversy" might work, but then we'd have to narrow the focus of the article to the fuss kicked up by ABC News (which is an obviously notable fuss and worthy of an article). As far as coining names goes, the product name (obviously) was create first. The name "pink slime" was applied to it years later. The question then arises, does "pink slime" refer to a specific product or to a process used to create products going under several different names. To answer that, we'd have to go back to the scientist who made up the name in the first place. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pink Slime Controversy" would probably be the best description of this article since that seems to be the main focus of the article. Most of the sources on here are obviously bias along with many of the edits being made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, contrary to the beliefs of Nancy and Carol (if its truly what they think), the "fast food" industry is feeding us poison which we should stay away from at all cost. The burger meats, chicken nuggets and many other forms of "fast food" are highly toxic to the health and can cause obesity and all kind of cancers.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.203.110 (talk • contribs)
A consequence common to all meat and animal fat, not peculiar to this product or the fast food industry; the fine dining and natural foods industries seem to also be deeply involved. User:Fred BauderTalk11:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's stick to facts. This is not a place for general discussion of the topic at hand, and it is certainly not a place for unsourced, citation-free pontification or fact-free declarations. There are many internet forums dedicated to such discussion. Go find them. Jparenti (talk) 05:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement quoted is not the only relevant part of WP:TITLE. There is also WP:NDESC "In some cases a descriptive phrase is best as the title (e.g., Population of Canada by year). These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. " So we have two contradictory rules in the same policy page-- which is not unusual, considering the way policy is written here by accretion. the solution is WP:IAR, that we select whatever option best promotes the fundamental purpose of NPOV. Everything considered, I like Fred Bauder's suggestion. We are here to do what is right, not to pick whatever rule suits our personal biases. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Fred Bauder's suggested "processed beef trimmings" would seem to be a particularly poor choice, introducing ambiguity into the article where none existed. That name gives the impression of being a technical term, ref. Advanced meat recovery#Products, yet it is invented by us. We already have real technical terms for this product, so why in the world would we want to go with an invented, ambiguous term? __meco (talk) 08:20, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because several editors (including you) have rejected the use of those appropriate, real technical terms, and this was an attempt to find a middle ground. Since you now recognize that appropriate, real technical terms exist, why do you oppose moving the article to one of those titles? Horologium(talk)11:44, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing in favor of using any technical terms in favor of the most commonly used term, which appears to be pink slime, I'm simply stating that starting to invent new technical terms is a really bad idea. __meco (talk) 12:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with DGG on selecting whatever option best promotes the fundamental purpose of NPOV and Fred Bauder on the name. IMO the current name brings WP into disrepute, a formal move request (without redirect) should be initiated as soon as. Mtking (edits) 01:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Historically speaking people refer to this topic as pink slime, anything else would bring us into disrepute by not automatically accepting the rarely used official company lingo.LuciferWildCat (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "trimmings". It's puree. It's not merely "beef" (which implies muscle tissue with perhaps a bit of fat) but beef gristle and Greaves_(food) to a large degree. As for being "processed", well obviously it is, but more accurately it is disinfected with ammonia or citric acid. So if we want to invent a term, "disinfected beef gristle puree" is about right. That said, this is pointless because "pink slime" is standard terminology. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 03:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we call it by the industry standard name used by everyone I've ever known who worked at slaughterhouses: cows' lips and assholes. I would support a merger of "pink slime", "meat slurry", and all the variations of "lean yummy beef trimmings" into the overarching title: "COWS' LIPS AND ASSHOLES". 'Cuz that's what this stuff is. 75.62.128.148 (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names." Period. We don't get to invent neologisms just because there are a handful of editors who can't stand the common terms already in use. Ravenswing19:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such is your POV, at any rate. I think our integrity would be far more at risk were we in the habit of coining neologisms and weasel-wording so as to invent an appearance of "fair and balanced" not shared by the wide world. WP:V is, equally, a core content policy. Ravenswing
Here's a couple of suggestions for a name, courtesy of Jon Stewart: "bovine velvet" or "ammonia soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste". First one is yummy-sounding PR, second one is an all-too-accurate description of the product, take your pick. OK, I'm not serious. But Ravenswing above perfectly describes the situation. Wikipedia doesn't have to, and shouldn't, go out and invent some "neutral" term just because some people don't like the term that is in common use. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Pink Slime. What is Pink Slime? its not the actual name of a product but rather a name given to a product during a time of controversy. Its jargon that represents a specific event or series of events and articles accompanied by a media frenzy that brought the product in to the public eye. This article should be about the controversy and not tempt to draw conclusions about the product. We all understand that there are questions about the health and safety of this product.If the FDA and the USDA dont call it pink slime, then its not pink slime. Aperseghin (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is pink slime, because this isn't the Beef Products, FDA, USDA -pedia, it is an encyclopedia, this material is commonly known as pink slime and articles use the most popular and correct term.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true since pink slime is not a POV term, the product is pink and it has the consistency of slime, "pink beef gristle slime" would be .LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pink Slime is a POV term since it is meant to instill a sense of grossness to LFTB. The product it refers to as sold by BPI is not slimy since it is sold frozen. When thawed it is also less slimy then "regular" ground beef since it has less fat.67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Missing the point...
I feel like the article is missing the point of why those inside the food manufacturing community question this product.
It generally isn't a matter of safety. Protein rendered out of fat is clearly protein, that protein treated with ammonium hydroxide will have a low bacteria load, and ammonium hydroxide is generally recognized as safe with regards to being a food additive. Questioning the safety of LFTB is basically going to lead nowhere because the product is indeed safe - you aren't likely to get food poisoning from eating it.
Here are the real questionable aspects of LFTB:
Should this product be labeled as "meat"? For legal purposes "meat" is defined in 9 CFR 301 as "The part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus...". LFTB is not generally skeletal muscle so it should not meet the definition of meat.
Should this product by classified as a beef byproduct? It is almost identical to PDBT (Partially Defatted Beef Fatty Tissue) which is defined in 9 CFR 319.15(e).
Assuming it is a beef byproduct, should it be allowed in ground beef? "Ground beef" is defined in 9 CFR 319.15(a) and is not allowed to contain PDBT. Why is LFTB being treated differently? (Contrast with "beef patties" which are allowed to contain PDBT, for background here see page 6 of http://www.beeffoodservice.com/CMDocs/BFS/BeefU/BeefUFactSheets/09_PI-GroundBeef.pdf)
Some would argue that political favoritism played a large part in all of the above. The issue isn't that LFTB is unsafe, the issue is that it is being treated and labeled by regulators as if it is "meat" when it should be treated as a byproduct. At the end of the day "meat" is a term that is supposed to be reserved for recognizable trimmings, not a slurry of rendered protein.
Another issue that is being overlooked by the article is the nutritional makeup of this product. While BPI likes to claim it is nutritionally the same as meat it clearly is not. One of the earliest controversies was whether this was closer to being meat or being connective tissue. The famous quote from Joann Smith was "it’s pink, therefore it’s meat" but that isn't what actual analysis shows. See http://www.exnet.iastate.edu/Pages/ansci/beefreports/asl-1361.pdf for an example - the protein in LFTB was close to 28% collagen (connective tissue), compared to the beef chuck control which was under 6% collagen.
Don't let this get dragged into a debate about "food safety" because that is missing the point. The real points to highlight are the regulatory exceptions made for this product and the nutritional differences between this product and meat. - Hoplon (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hoplon above is correct.
In addition, the controversial aspects of Pink Slime include Truth in Labeling and Consumer Rights. Many major food retailers concluded years ago that Pink Slime was of insufficient quality to allow on their shelves. More recently, consumers who have learned the facts --of Pink Slime's origin (traditionally used as dog food), constituent parts (tissue close to hide & rectum, collagen, etc), production process (rendered & sterilized), legal restrictions (cannot be sold as a standalone product, only 15% additive without labeling) and widespread presence in supermarket/fast food products-- they reacted with rapid, widespread opposition.
Consumers prefer to know from a product label what they are buying. Beyond safety, some prefer not to eat certain parts of an animal, even when it's sterilized and mixed into ground-meat products. But consumers were never informed that Pink Slime constituted ANY part of the products they purchased even as individual product names (e.g. McDonald's hamburger, ground beef) stayed the same. They understandably felt deceived by the product manufacturers, government regulators and retailers. Pink Slime producers' reaction, a PR campaign asserting that their product is actually called "Lean Finely Textured Beef," merely reinforced consumers' conclusion that vested interest were concealing the truth about the true nature of Pink Slime in order to sell them something they would not knowingly choose to buy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munguza (talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Besides ground chuck, ground round, or even ground sirloin there is no label identify what parts of the cow are in ground beef. Where are the labels on hot dogs explaining what parts of the animals are included. I understand people needs/wants for product labeling but I think people understand that non primal specific ground beef is made up of many parts of the cow.67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
well, no. gov. perry went on a publicity tour for Beef Products, Inc. and said that. they - whoever that may be - are not backing off. the manufacturer has simply decided to polish its image. --87.171.92.187 (talk) 07:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Governors from three meat-producing states today defended Beef Products Inc., the company that makes lean finely textured beef, which now-former USDA scientists 'nicknamed' "pink slime," after a walk through the company's plant accompanied by ABC News.
"Let's call this product what it is and let 'pink slime' 'become a term of the past'," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said after the tour, after which officials showed off t-shirts with the slogan, "Dude, it's beef!" Aperseghin (talk) 13:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't beef no matter how many times one company and its cronies insist on it. However it is noteworthy to mention the massive propaganda machine going on around the issue.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notice the subtle slander in the AP quote there? "now-former USDA scientists" is clearly intended to evoke a dismissive reaction from the speakers audience. — V = IR(Talk • Contribs)05:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It should be noted that the jobs lost by the public rebellion against "pink slime" are no jobs at all, by American standards, even though they are located in the US: undocumented workers who have no social security, no unemployment insurance, no minimum wage, no overtime, no access to wages and hours courts, no workman's compensation, and so on - third world wage slaves. How shameful - all so the almighty consumer can get meat for a few pennies less a pound. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.245.254 (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not factual at all. I have spoke with several current and former employees and none of them had issues with wages, most paid pretty well actually. Many were even on the news in support of the company. Its comments, like above, that make it hard believe that they are making edits NPOV when their personal views on here are anything but POV.67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Misleading footnote
The site linked to by the first instance of footnote number [3], which seeks to document the sentence, "It usually refers to low-grade beef trimmings from connective tissue, spinal, rectal, and other intestinal material," contains no reference to either spinal, rectal, or other intestinal material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack6128 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is not true since not spinal material is allow by USDA standards and BPI meets USDA standards. No intestinal material is there either since all internal organs are removed before any trimming is done. Connective tissue if present in the raw material before being process is separated out by machines de-sinewers that remove any sinew. Low-grade since they are little value to any other company with BPI's patented technology. I assume that's why no reference was made67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
scare quotes
Are actually proper in this case as major newspapers etc. have been using the term "pink slime" in quotation marks per their own manuals of style - and Wikipedia should follow their lead in this case. Collect (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the only such article on Wikipedia - and it certainly appears to be the most common term applied at this point. As long as we keep the tone neutral, it could be called "Meatamite" for all I care <g>. Collect (talk) 21:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes are not appropriate, they are simply used as standard for emerging terms by journalistic manuals of style and are unnecessary here on wikipedia. It is clearly the only term in common use and fervently opposed by industry brownosers here and throughout the media, furthermore the company Beef Products even uses the term pink slime to say it should really be called x because of people's unfamiliarity with it's deception euphemistic company jargon,LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Industry brownnosers"? Yes, anyone who disagrees with you must ... I don't know, want something from the meatpacking industry? Please try to be a bit more collegial in your commentary. We're all trying to improve the encyclopedia here. PowersT02:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes industry brownosers, the anonymous IPs, and new and single purpose accounts, and people that claim to have visited the company but not worked for it, have friends there but not have a conflict of interest. We should make a concerted effort to block and prevent abuse and POV pushing by this company and it's propaganda and report honestly what this food product is. Not anyone that disagrees with me, but those that are dubious in their sincerity at improving the article and those that clearly have only read the company's webpage only need to be filtered out from having their say count here. Wikipedia is better than that and should stay independent of that.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scare quotes are absolutely appropriate here since to not use them would be misleading. Even in day-to-day affairs I've heard people say "'pink slime,' or whatever it's actually called." The general public and the news media both know that the term is not proper, so Wikipedia must reflect that. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum 11 out of 13 references use quotes in the actual reference. It is quite clear the the term "pink slime" is the most commonly used term, not pink slime. Rip-Saw (talk) 04:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, using them misleads people into thinking the term may be dubious when it is not. The media may use it to avoid a lawsuit from BPI or because it is a neologism, but we don't need to follow suit. When people talk about pink slime they talk about pink slime not "pink slime". Also "the media and general public both know" is a statement that reaks of PR POV pushing with its domineering all knowing tone, especially from an account with that has only made edits to about 4 or 5 topics and has around 30 edits total, ever.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your own POV on this subject reeks, with edits such as adding "waste" to the description when 5 out of 6 sources for this article use the term scraps and scraps alone. The general consensus in the public eye is clearly that "pink slime" is a neologistic term, it is dubious since it is being disputed right now, and your refusal to admit that further compounds your own POV. Furthermore, you are violating WP:Civility with your ad hominem attack on myself. Perhaps you should review your own history of dubious edits on your own talk page before questioning the edit history of others. Rip-Saw (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not inserting any POV into the article just facts, that only the company itself would dislike. The word "waste" is used in one of the citations and is just as valid as scraps. Just because a term is used in sources doesn't mean we copy and paste their usage, that is plagiarism. We write sentences as independent writers using the sources as proof of our assertions but it is actually good writing to use different adjectives and adverbs and nouns from the sources to show that at the very least some honest paraphrasing took place. Your personal opinion about the public's view is extremely screwed against rationality and makes me suspect your involvement and conflict of interest even more. Everyone is saying pink slime. It isn't a neologism since it has been around for over 10 years and that is cited. Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved. I have not attacked you in anyway, however your unsubstantiated accusation of vandalism is actually considered a personal attack, since I clearly was just adding a referenced sentence in my continued attempts to improve an article that is a work in progress. It would be wise for you to get some more experience editing here before making such rash accusations.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are very much so making personal attacks. When you say things like "Only a bias minority with a stake in profits is disputing that and the use of pink slime has already been voted on and approved," you are saying that if an editor disagrees with your position then they must be a corporate shill - it's a false dilemma. This is unacceptable behavior. From what I've read on this talk page from you it appears to me as though you are far too involved to have a neutral take on this discussion and it's getting disruptive. Please either WP:COOL it down or take a break. SÆdontalk09:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors have claimed my good faith edits are vandalism and that is the only personal attack that I have seen. That statement is true. Read further up and you will see that the community has decided that this should be called pink slime. Furthermore any IP address or single purpose account that aggressively promotes the company position is highly suspect.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saedon is correct; you need to cut back on the rhetoric and start treating your collaborators with more respect. PowersT14:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Use of term "waste"
There are 21 cited sources in this article, 7 use the term scrap, 1 uses the term waste. Scraps, by definition: bits or pieces of food, especially of leftover or discarded food already incorporates the definition of waste: left over or superfluous, therefore using both terms is redundant and the more descriptive term wins out. Rip-Saw (talk) 06:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it isn't waste. Besides waste is better than pulverized cow anus as many bloggers and members of the public are now referring to the product. I am sure Steven Colbert will be using it soon.! Also don't talk as if you are the one that decides who wins out. lol.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If 7 sources are calling it scraps and 1 is calling it waste then we're giving a term WP:UNDUE weight. It's true that 7 sources using "scraps" doesn't mean it's not waste (logically it also doesn't mean it's not a tennis racquet, or anything else for that matter), but it's not our job to determine terminology, we report what the sources say. Yes, "waste" is better than "pulverized cow anus," and it's also better than a million other things, but since the sources don't call it "pulverized cow anus" or a million other things, we don't. SÆdontalk09:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We don't say exactly what the sources say every time, especially when a term has to be repeated again and again, and since many different sources say "scrap" "waste" "filler" and "additive" we should use them all in an alternating fashion or similar terms paraphrasing the meaning such as rubbish or byproduct substance and they should all be listed.LuciferWildCat (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many blogs are now using this term and I believe it should be added to the article, another editor disputed this and called my cited addition vandalism. Therefore I bring this matter to the attention of this talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if pink slime is made with contaminated meat including that which is exposed to fecal matter, and is from cows, and is turned into a puree, pulverized, cow, and anus all come to mind. Furthermore after reading the blogs, I beg to differ, the blogs show an analysis of pink slime comparable to the news articles on pink slime. I see no agenda there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may think its made a certain way and since blogs are nothing more then other people personal views by nature your reasoning and education level on the subject seems limited to the very people against "Pink Slime"67.212.109.85 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I for one am not disregarding anything, I have just finished copyediting the article with some other editors constantly reverting anything I add whatsoever blindly without any discussion and this includes non-controversial well cited content, and content removal is even worse than any POV problems actual or imaginary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is the article's title. We've got sources that specifically say it's the name given by one side, and we have no sources that actually say it's the common name - just SYNTH attempting to "prove" it's the common name. And COMMONNAME doesn't apply to POV names anyway. As a result, there's no reason not to rename the article to something neutral - but such a move is being blocked by certain editors who either don't know the rules or aren't willing to follow them thereby preventing consensus. However, it is my contention that consensus isn't necessary to fix policy (Pillar) violations and that any editor attempting to revert could be blocked for disruption. Rklawton (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if you're that eager to be desysopped, why not hand in your resignation and make it a good bit less nasty? It's appalling that an editor and admin of your experience just doesn't seem to get it: it's not that a consensus of editors don't understand your POV or know the rules, we just don't agree with you. The notion that you believe admins to be a superior class of people who can and should run self-righteous roughshod over all opposition is an ugly one, and the notion that you think it's okay to block editors who are on the side of consensus against your POV a disgusting one. As a wise man once said, is this the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 02:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you dig yourself a grave by using terms such a "pulverized cow anus," a term which I could only find ONE blogger use, people are going to start undoing any work you put into the article that shines any negative light onto the topic. When all of your edits are POV and people keep reverting them, it's easy to think that those others must not be neutral; this is faulty logic on your part. If I was pro pink slime, I might insert terms like "delicious" or "nutritious lean beef trimmings." If you, however, continue to use well-sourced FACTS, which most of your edits do, people will take you seriously. Facts in an of themselves are always neutral, it is the wording of facts and people's agendas that are POV. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no graves here just some editorial disagreements that will be worked out. I just wish certain editors would refrain from content removal of sourced content under the guise of "talk" when only they have commented on it. The responsibility falls on the editor to review what he is deleting to be based on analysis of the content not his opinion of the user nor his editors, even if they included pulverized cow anus, which I found to be used in several blogs. I keep editing not with facts but with verifiable reliable source statements, which is what wikipedia runs on. I have not chosen to focus on just the negative nor the positive. In fact that sort of polar thinking isn't very helpful anyways as it is arbitrary. Is it really a negative that the production has been suspended, is it really a negative that there is ammonia used in the product? As an editor I don't care, but I want the reader who does care to be able to decide that for herself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and it ends with "Slimy mischaracterizations, meanwhile, can be devastating. In extremely negative language, a safe product known as lean finely textured beef got framed — and mislabeled — in a very bad way." which I believe is the point of the article67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mass content removal of sourced content is seriously a bad call, if there are editorial differences perhaps some some effort could be put into the article and reword things. I have just been trying to cleanup and help improve cohesion, layout, and references. But overzealous editor(s) have wiped it all out without reviewing it line item which is what should be done. A few points on what was removed in this edit...
Change.org
It has been signed by over a quarter million people and noted in the press and credited for the banning of PS by the supermarkets.
Cheap
Fillers are cheap and the product is routinely referred to as cheap or inexpensive and as such should be noted per the sources.
Done. Two references have been added to the article, both of which denote the product as "cheap":
The product is not finished until it has been turned into flash frozen blocks, this it vital to illustrate the product but you removed it.
E Coli and Salmonella
These are the bacteria that it is ammonized for, it is more specific than just bacteria and helps illustrate the process better. This is a fact not a point of view.
15%
It should be noted that it can only be sold as filler and only 15% or less or else it would have to be labelled, this is cited.
Pet food/cooking oil
Originally that's what this was so we as an encyclopedia should report the history of pink slime as dog food grade meat.
Fecal matter
There is widespread disgust with this product, it is important to note that integument (hide) that is exposed to fecal matter is used in this product, this is cited not POV.
I have reworded to address both the concern that it should specify exactly what the citation says about pink slime and fecal matter and the grammar.LuciferWildCat (talk) 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The whistleblower's point of view is of interest as is the point of view of BPI, "fraud" and "not fresh" vs "beef is beef" and "wholesome", it should be brought up since this is controversial and we remain neutral by reporting the opposing viewpoints.
Salvage
It has been called salvage in this citation and we can't keep saying pink slime pink slime pink slime so a pronoun or equivalent is useful here.
AP review
It was reviewed for taste by the Associated Press a neutral party and very respected news organization, pink slime was said to have both pros and cons and it should be noted.
John Stewart
Most wikipedia articles will mention colbert/stewart/snl satire and the like, and in fact the phrase "ammonia soaked centrifuge separated byproduct paste" is probably the most technical and least bias of them all and makes for interesting filler
Supermarkets
This is a huge part of the controversy, most supermarkets in the United States wont sell it anymore, which ones and why is of note, some have continued and why is also important.
Supermarket, exhaustive list of stores
If every Wikipedia article that listed a major corporation listed all of its subsidiaries, Wikipedia would be very long-winded to read. Kroger, supervalu, and safeway have been identified as large distributes. Someone keeps adding the subsidiaries and the subsidiaries' subsidiaries and this is not needed as it uselessly clutters the article with non-relevant information.Rip-Saw (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's more important for interested readers to know which supermarkets do and do not sell pink slime, the parent company is not helpful. For instance in Los Angeles most people don't know if Vons or Ralphs is Kroger or Safeway and the explanation in the article is helpful as are the links. This is especially true since many supermarkets have similar names or sometimes the same name licensed to different LLC incarnations of the store in different markets. The content is sourced and is vital information showing the scope of the divestment. Clutter is only an issue of laying it out in an easy to read format but Wikipedia is not paper. I am not opposed to a link to footnotes stating which grocery stores, but I find it unnecessary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a list. It is an encyclopedic report in proper sentences with proper citations of what grocery stores stopped selling pink slime and when. None of them have so far have started selling the slime again and as such any notion of ephemeralness is speculative. Furthermore it is not ephemeral because what they did at a particular time does not change. It is written well enough to explain that and it is not exactly an "exhaustive list" in the sense of "incessantly long" nor is it a list which is a topdown numbered 1 by X spreadsheet. Would you have us remove all mention of the markets that wont sell pink slime? Under your interpretation of what a list is, we should not mention it either, and that would be non-neutral. We must report all the important facts and a huge part of this is which grocery stores don't sell pink slime or have stopped. That is very much encyclopedic value. Also if it were a list of a temporary nature, that is exactly what an encyclopedia does, it keeps track of history. So you are wrong on all accounts.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likely understated - if McDonald's and BK and Taco Bell and Wal-Mart and all of the supermarket chains listed and school lunch programs each used it on a regular basis, I suspect that far more than 300 billion "meals" have contained the product. 300 billion is likely a very conservative figure. [7][8][9] (7 million pounds this spring in school lunches = more than 150 million school lunches alone this spring - 70% of all ground beef has product = untold billions of meals). The Today Show had a person state Americans alone eat over 40 billion hamburgers a year ... Taco Bell alone sells over 2 billion tacos per year. The 300 billion is very credible on its face. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Credible" is not the point; this is original research and is no more citable than the press release from the company. The figure may well be accurate but without a Reliable Source we can't use it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which are those and is it still in the article? Honestly this user has only intermittently edited wikipedia about once a year for a couple years and has only recently emerged with only pro-pink slime edits and whitewashing of negative pink slime content, I think a check user would be in order to determine if this is a hunch or true. I will assume good faith but I would like to know for sure this is not a PR person for the beef lobby or BPI.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a sudden flood of pro-industry edits, some of them amounting to vandalism, by brand new single purpose accounts. I have warned one of them already. If this keeps up I am going to request semi-protection for the article. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know some people have said that I am on an anti-pink slime jihad, but the truth is this non-neutral vandalism and bias is what has most attracted me to this article. If it would be reversed and only anti-pink slime content were being added with the opposite removed or contorted I would be equally zealous in adding the counter content and neutralizing the subject matter and would easily be accused of being on a pro slime jihad. However I am glad others have taken notice of the bias and vandalism that this article is being subjected to.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pink slime / puree
This line was removed "Pink slime resembles a beef-based puree and could best be described as a centrifuge separated beef paste." although unsourced it is a common sense explanation of what the product is and is supported by the sources and the images available. It helps the reader understand why someone would have coined the term pink slime and explain that the food matter is a viscous paste, a lot of ground beef is rather slimey anyways so I don't see the problem.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is not directly sourced but in any case we could combine the parts that say the end product resembles a paste and the fact that it is made in a centrifuge to create an illustrative definition of what the product is much in the same way a dictionary would, make sense?LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know which "recent edit" you are talking about. I can easily read it but it is confusing if you mean the first sentence by recent edit as it is a redundant second clause. Correct me if I am wrong but to prevent any confusion diff(s) would be helpful. Please just clarify what you mean so that I can effectively be on the same page as you and respond accordingly. Something you have a pattern of not doing (User talk:Nomoskedasticity#3rr).LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which material is that sir or madam? I can't talk to you if you make vague statements without a diff. I honestly don't know what you are talking about and you seem to ignore what I say and you don't respond directly. Will you provide a diff? Or will you just remain silent or let it go like you did when you offered to explain what you meant about the 3RR and then did not do so after I contacted you twice with questions about it and clearly continued to make comments to me here but ignored previous attempts at communication?LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So pink slime is made from small pieces of meat attached to really fatty and connective tissue and nerve tissue and bone pieces, but the fat is well that fat of it. It is heated in the centrifuge because that separates the fat. It is heated to 100 degrees in that centrifuge and that naturally will incubate every little bacterium until it is raging with disease, that is where the citric acid or ammonia come in. I think we need to have this fact included in the article. It's explained on beef products website and I am sure we can source the common sense that hot wet raw meat is a great incubator for bacteria. Personally I find the fact that it is heated and therefore the already highly bacteria infested meat to be more gross than the citric acid or ammonia part and in any case we should explain the process more thoroughly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off nerve tissue and bone pieces are not part of the trimmings used in the production process. Secondly how long does it stay at 100 degrees before being flash frozen. Is it a significant amount time to gestate any significant number pathogenic bacteria? Also why wasn't bacteria an issue for all the years BPI made LFTB before treating with ammonia?67.212.109.85 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted this is a POV pushing single purpose IP involved in whitewashing the article with a clear conflict of interest and probably a company official.
This thread is not an argument. It is a discussion so users may collaborate on finding proper sourcing for the issue I have brought forth. Nerve tissue is in the product, nerve tissues are part of what connective tissues are. If you ate your product you would taste the mealy pieces of nerves in it. The meat scraps are heated and this incubates a huge amount of bacteria, if it didn't you wouldn't need to apply ammonia or citric acid. So obviously the length of time does not matter much. It sure sounds like bacteria has always been an issue, perhaps BPI hid it well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are injecting what you think is science into an area where not only is it improper for WP editors to assert expertise (which you do not appear to claim), but where such surmises are WP:OR ab initio. Collect (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No I am communicating a desire to find proper sourcing and develop a passage that describes a paste that is made in centrifuges from contaminated meat byproducts as a "centrifuge meat paste" which is just a logical conclusion and is not scientific or unscientific.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The real issue is no real regulation on bone and the process that is banned in so many nations including Canada is processing meat with ammonia. Despyria (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
spinal sections / mad cow / csm
I have read in some news articles that spinal sections are used to grab the meat from there and that it has been highly concerning as this is the part closest to spinal fluid, encephalis, and other mad cow disease containing matter. Can anyone find it or see it? Perhaps it's hidden in one of our existing links?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel this quote and the following material should not be removed as it is key in the history of this controversy. I am not opposed to it being included outside the intro in whole and summarized in some way in the lead. It is all cited and that is not in question. What does everyone else think?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many consumers have stated a preference that products containing pink slime should be labeled as such, but a LFTB producer, Beef Products, Inc. (BPI), and meat industry organizations have stated that the product is already termed appropriately as "beef". When asking "what do you want us to label it" and the questioner stated "pink slime", a BPI representative said, "[we are] not prepared to label it pink slime". It was reported by ABC News that beef labeled as "USDA Organic" is comprised solely of meat without pink slime as filler.
The "not prepared to call it that" line is cited to three references, but I could not find this quote in any of the three. Could you please show me the actual reference where a BPI representative said this? If not I am going to remove it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a reference from an ABC affiliate's website, and moved the other two references upwards, as they don't support the quote. Scopecreep (talk) 16:05, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Look, folks, let's avoid loaded and POV words where there is a neutral alternative, unless they are in a direct quote. And let's not keep inserting such words everywhere, especially in the lead. Examples: "cheap" (say inexpensive), "low grade" (one time in the article is enough, where it is talking about the USDA). And let's stop inserting adjectives, which are automatically POV. Examples: "wholesome" and "nutritious" on the one side, "slimy" and "adulterated" on the other side. There are a few of us here who are trying very hard to keep this article neutral, and "neutral" means free of POV on EITHER side. --MelanieN (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may well be a place for this quote somewhere in the article - but not in the lead. Personally I don't find it adds much to what's already in the article -- and I'm not impressed with the accuracy of that "Q&A" section from the Omaha World Herald. For example, it says the meat is treated with "ammonium gas" but there is no such thing. There is ammonia, a gaseous compound; and there is ammonium hydroxide, which you get when you mix ammonia with water. There is no such compound as "ammonium". --MelanieN (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Legality in the UK and Canada
The lead says that it isn't legal in either the UK or Canada, but this doesn't appear to be stated in either of the sources associated with this sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the second source there (currently ref #6, Gothamist, "totally banned in Canada and UK"). We might want it better substantiated, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is a reliable source on legality of importation of foods? For a long time, chicken from the US was "illegal" in the EU - should we have had that in the "chicken" article? <g>. And all US beef was "illegal" in the EU for many years. Without a sound source as to "legality" and reasoning therefor, it seems to hit UNDUE at the least. Collect (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note Canada speciafically allows FTM. I am unsure as to whether or not ammonia is an approved anti-microbial agent per "The optional use of antimicrobial agents, when used as pathogen reduction procedures for cutting of raw meat, must be included as part of the operator's control program." as "ammonia does not appear directly on the page cited. That is apparently entirely up to "Health Canada." Collect (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Potentially obvious compromise
For varying definitions of "obvious" and "compromise."
It's looking increasingly likely that the name of this article will remain "Pink slime," even as editors supportive of the name don't quite feel comfortable with it (I count myself in this category). But considering how excited people are getting, here and elsewhere, about the terminology involved, very little of the article itself addresses this aspect. Why not make a section--say, Name, Terminology, or maybe even Etymology--that lays out the various terms used to refer to this type of beef, and who uses which terms? If there's anything like a consensus on this topic, I think it could be expressed as:
A terminology section could express this nuance without either presenting "pink slime" as uncontroversial or bowing before the preferences of the industry. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you find any Reliable Sources to cite in explaining these usages? Looks to me like it would be pretty much original research/synthesis, and that's the last thing we need in such a controversial article. (Your analysis is correct IMO, but it's still OR/synthesis unless some Independent Reliable Source says it.) Probably the talk page is the only place where the explanation, and argument, about the name can be expressed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources already cited in the article can offer some insight into the origins of the various terms and who uses what. We need not indulge in OR or synthesis. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A reasonable summary, except it's missing the rationale for why an "industry euphemism" is unacceptable as the title of the article. (I wonder what those who have called "lean finely textured beef" a "euphemism" would prefer the industry call their product; surely one wouldn't expect them to call it "pink slime"?) PowersT19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An inudstry euphemism isn't unacceptable when its the only name and possibly the more common name, however this product already has a layterm that is outside of industry jargon and inside widespread usage, appearing frequently without quotations in the media and it has even been translated into "baba rosa" (rose colored drool) in the spanish press and other similar equivalents in german, chinese, russian. That makes it the clear choice.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not as clear as you think; "pink slime" almost always appears with scare quotes, marking it as a neologism (as well as the fact that most sources take the time to define the term whenever its used). PowersT19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True but wikipedia doesn't name things what a company would like or not like just what is accurate, so that question presents a false dichotomy if it's meant to corner someone into deciding "we have to name the article LFTB because the company wouldn't be expected to call it that", if that's what you mean.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to include a section on the debate of using the name, since there is little debate about the name anywhere except this talkpage. This talkpage would make for poor encyclopedic content. Pink slime is the only appropriate name for this article. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Edit request on 2 April 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
To whom it may concern,
The page "pink slime" is entirely slanderous, and most of the information on this page is falsed and based on misinformation. As a constant user of Wikipedia, I would like to request that the page be changed. I refer to Wikipedia to find factual information from credible sources, and this page is merely a regurgitation of someone else's opinion. Please help make the changes. Pink slime is a slanderous word only meant to scare consumers, and the term is costing American jobs. Please, either remove the page, or talk about what Pink Slime actually is.
The National Consumers League issued a press release March 28, about "Lean Finely Textured Beef", which seems very supportative BPI and its CEO, Eldon Roth. I would like to add some of this material to the article. Is there any reason to suspect that National Consumers League is not a reliable source?
The Washington Post article from June 12, 2008, also seems to praise BPI for its work making beef safer. This source is already a reference in the article. Should more of this material be added to the article? Is this source reliable?
We could use it as an example of a similar product or of meat/food industrialization. Also are you sure, it has widely been reported as being pink slime and only that one huffpo article calls it chicken.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I note repeated reference to political party in this article. I question its relevance. I have refrained from editing as there appear to be more than enough editors already.
DougRickman (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Donation to Romney
I deleted the sentence about the owner of BPI donating to Romney, which is completely irrelevant to this article. Otherwise the only reference I found to political parties was to identify the party of the various governors at their first mention, which is standard procedure. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I and another editor have restored the referenced sentence about political donations by the CEO of BPI, but I've removed mention of Romney because he was only one of many recipients, and has not commented on the current controversy as far as I can tell. Mention of political parties is relevant to the discussion, because members of both parties in Congress as well as local politicians have taken a public stand on the debate. Scopecreep (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:Scopecreep directly above this comment: since politicians from the Democratic and Republican Parties have publicly commented regarding the topic, it's appropriate to include their views. Northamerica1000(talk)01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Note): My above comment was regarding the original title of this section, "Is political party relevant to this topic?", and not about the "Donation to Romney" matter per se or exclusively; the section "Donation to Romney" was added after I commented regarding the "Is political party relevant to this topic?" section. I've changed "Donation to Romney" to a subsection. Northamerica1000(talk)02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MelanieN is correct. Mention of political affiliation is appropriate for elected politicians. Roth is not an elected politician; his political donations are not relevant to the History of his invention. CarsonsDad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to have a small edit war going on, about whether the fact that the owner of the manufacturing company has donated money to Mitt Romney has anything to do with an article about this product. Let's solve it here. WolverineLawyer has added it back twice, on the basis that Politico reported on it. Scopecreep also added it back once. I have deleted it as irrelevant, and CarsonsDad deleted it twice. It is currently not in the article. Before it gets put back in, I need someone to explain to me WHY the owner of the company's political contributions have anything to do with an article about the company's product, if the recipient of the donations has not had any other connection to this story. Example of what IS relevant IMO: the fact that the company donated to one of the governors who is now touting the product. That is in the article, and it belongs there, because it may cast light on an aspect of the story, namely the promotion by the governor. Example of what is NOT relevant IMO: the fact that the company donated to a major political candidate who hasn't said Word One about this controversy. Absent a connection to the story, this is no more relevant than if the owner gave money to the American Red Cross. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually CarsonsDad had deleted it three times by the time you'd posted that: [11], [12], [13], and then deleted it a fourth time a minute later, [14], in apparent breach of the Three-revert rule. As I said above, yes, Romney shouldn't be mentioned in the article as he hasn't made a public statement yet on pink slime. But the Politico reference doesn't only talk about Romney, it also talks about other Republican campaigns. Since every Republican mentioned in the article supports BPI's position in the debate, mention of Roth's donations is relevant in the article. So I'll add another, more neutral reference mentioning this, alongside the referenced mention of the contribution to Branstad. Please don't rush to delete it before discussing the deletion here. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Pink slime" is a neologism invented by critics of the product and is therefore not NPOV. "Pink slime" is also almost always referred to using quotation marks, indicating that is is a nickname or neologism. Wiki-Taka (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It makes wikipedia look bad to have this as the thread title. Pink slime should redict to it's correct, rational, original name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.84 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia uses common names, not scientific names, because it is for general use. For example: the article for dog is at dog, not "Canis lupus familiaris", the article for salt is at salt, not "sodium chloride", and the article for the Andromeda galaxy is at Andromeda galaxy, not "Messier Object 31". --86.167.141.239 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is no NPOV term that can be used. When you have 2 names, both of which are POV, you use the more common name. "Lean finely texture beef" is not NPOV, because it was likely invented strictly to combat "pink slime". Rip-Saw (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We certainly need SOME source. The two references appended to that sentence said nothing about it being illegal in the UK, and the appeared to be wrong about it being illegal in Canada, so I deleted the sentence. (Turns out that the finely ground beef is allowed in Canada, but not if it has been treated with ammonia; good research by WolverineLawyer to find the reference for that.) If you have some evidence that it is illegal for human consumption in the UK or other countries, it can be added back, but a source is required. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The intro describes Pink Slime as a "filler." The provided link goes to Meat Extenders, which says they are non-meat protein products. I looked up meat and the article says meat is muscle, fat, and often the associated tissue. I understand Pink Slime is the other tissues, but that would mean that it's "meat" and hence not a "meat extender" or "filler." 98.243.172.27 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that it really is a filler/extender in every useful sense, and it's just that previously it never occurred to anyone that meat would be used as a meat extender. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pink slime is cited as filler, what filler links to is irrelevant as that article discusses filler in every context including many that don't apply to meat or even food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs)
"Not for nothing, they argue, has the stuff been banned in Europe, where mechanically-separated meat from cows and sheep has been prohibited since the era of BSE."
Actually not -- all US beef was "banned" for years in the EU and UK. Every ounce. And for a decade all UK beef was banned in the EU. Until 2008, all Brazilian beef was banned in the EU. South Africa bans all UK beef. And per [16] the ban is not in any way specific to "pink slime." The UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it had agreed to the moratorium but stressed there was no evidence of any risk to human health from eating cow and sheep meat produced from the low-pressure 'Desinewed Meat' (DSM) removal technique. Which is not the product considered by this article. Cheers.
Um -- try looking this up -- the "pink slime" sources do not say it, but the Guardian, Telegraph and The Times among thousands of sources certainly have said it. The new "pink slime" ban is not the only "ban" on US beef historically in the EU and UK. And try to read sources before saying "it is not what sources say" Lucifer. Collect (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that the US really doesn't mass process meat anymore. Most of it is done in Canada & Mexico and it is Mexico that is processing the slime as it were. Additionally, as near as I can tell, the USDA has guidelines and no real regulation on the matter. Despyria (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What you say does not appear to be true. In 2009 American meat companies produced 26 billion pounds of beef [ [17]], and the United States imported only 3.2 billion pounds of beef and veal from other countries (including 1 billion pounds from Canada, the largest supplier) [18]. It should also be noted that the "pink slime" factory is in South Dakota, which last time I looked was not part of Mexico. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the compostion of this stuff? WHY isn't comparative composition an integral part of the article?
As I understand it, Pink Slime is up to 70% protein, but is this total weight or weight solids? (I am not a food scientist and don't understand their customary nomenclature.) Pink slime's protein contains 77% insoluble protein. Does that mean it is "non-nutritional" filler? If 77% of this is non-nutritional but technically qualifies as "protein" then the producers have 'gamed' the system.
I suggest a comparison between chuck or round cuts, sausage and/or 'hot dogs', and ground beef with and without 15% pink slime added. Now, wouldn't that be useful? Why isn't ammonia used in Canada? Is methylimidazole a thermal product of ammonia and meat? Can anybody help? 71.31.149.105 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your single source is not sufficient to make the claim. Cheers. Wikipedia is not here to preach how evil Beef Products is, and how horrid their product is. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic information. Period. Adding defamatory stuff because someone wrote it is not how an encyclopedia is made. Collect (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my source, it's a major medium as a source. Soylent pink is not saying it is evil, it is saying that the researchers that coined it pink slime also called it soylent pink. The sources don't say anything is horrid, nor did I add that so I fail to see why you would bring that up. This information is not defamatory, it is accurate and from the USDA scientist's mouth. someone didn't write it, that is deceptive, a reputable journalist reported what the scientists that did not want this product approved wrote this. I agree we need not unnecessarily defame anyone but I find that you are being overzealous here and neutrality does not mean sugarcoating negativity, it means objectively reporting what the sources say whether the general impression be good or bad, and that is subjective to say the least.09:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Calling a spade a spade doesn't violate our rules when the spade is obviously a spade, positive or negative. It's a good article by a reputable publisher and we should use it if there's information to be extracted. We don't leave content out simply because it's not nice. Realistically, the best way for companies to avoid negative exposure like this would be to not secretly put disgusting stuff in our food - but when they do, we report it. SÆdontalk01:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source attributes the term to a single person. Absent any reason to think it is in "common usage" in reliable sources, it is not usable. I would suggest, moreover, that the article is quite sufficiently negative at this point. Collect (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any reference to the term "soylent pink" would be inappropriate. The term has not passed into common use, and it is way too negative a term to use on the basis of a single passing reference. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is anyones "feeling" that the article negative at all relevant, shouldn't we just worry about it being accurate? Negative is very arbitrary, I mean should be whitewash the article on Nazism or Hitler or concentration camp, because they are too negative? That would be original research and personally I don't see how soylent pink is negative at all, in fact it sounds alot more marketable than pink slime to me, and since both were credited to a single man and reported to be in common usage among the USDA scientific community we should describe the history of how that unfolded as is our job as an encyclipedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, good catch, Von Restoff! I'll try one more time to explain to Lucifer and get him to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. In the first place, this term has NOT passed into common usage as Pink Slime has. And in the second place, "not negative at all"? Nothing could be more horrible than a comparison to Soylent Green, which (if you recall) was made from human flesh. Even Pink Slime doesn't deserve that kind of analogy - especially not if the analogy was made by only one person and not picked up in general usage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is still historically relevant and what does the negativity matter, again does that mean we should tout how well organized Auswitcz and not any of the bad stuff since it's "negative".?LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come off it, Lucifer. There is already plenty of "bad stuff" in the article, nobody is trying to sanitize it. We are only objecting to this one nickname, because it is not in common use. And quit with the Nazi analogies. As Von Restorff pointed out, using Hitler analogies is virtually always a losing argument. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Pennsylvania company is blaming the recent coverage of ammonia-treated boneless lean beef trimmings – variously mocked as “pink slime” or “Soylent Pink” – for its dire financial straits.
Following Monday's announcement by Beef Products Inc. that the company would suspend operations at three of the four facilities that produce lean finely textured beef (LFTB), many wonder what lasting impact major supermarkets and restaurant chains will have as they stop buying the product publicly derided as "pink slime" or "soylent pink."
Still, he refers to the cheap meat product as “gross stuff.” It's also been referred to as “Soylent Pink” in a nod to the classic science fiction film “Soylent Green.”
None of the other names for the substance do much for it either. “Soylent Pink ” was floated at one point. Even its official title “Lean Beef Trimmings,” is little better.
Thanks for the sources. They are unconvincing, however. "...was floated at one point" is another way of saying it never caught on. And all three sources make clear that "Soylent Pink" is, and is intended to be, derogatory. (For that matter so is "pink slime", but at least it is in general use.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Soylent pink has no place in this article, unless it is to specifically reference how crazy some activists can get. I do agree with a redirect, however, since it is a valid search term. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Country X, also known as the evil enemy... Please see WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." - "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.". We should probably use whatever the available reliable sources use. Von Restorff (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've mixed them up: 'lean finely textured beef (LFTB)' is the technical name ("Country X"), 'Pink slime' is the political propaganda name ("the evil enemy"). Praetonia (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; if the industry term is thought too favourable (can't see how "pink slime" could be more unfavourable!), a purely descriptive title would be better. Praetonia (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree with you that a purely descriptive title would be better, it would not be policy. I certainly disagree with the WP:COMMONNAME policy on the grounds of it not being technical enough, but since it is policy, we should stick with it. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Commonly used by whom? A certain section of the media commonly refers to the US Tea Party as 'teabaggers', but that plainly wouldn't be an appropriate article title even if enough people used it that it became more common than the official name.
Done. Two references have been added to the article, both of which denote the product as "cheap":
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Bility (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Please see WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." - "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.". We should probably use whatever the available reliable sources use. Von Restorff (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}