Talk:Upside Foods

Note created by a now-blocked sockpuppet

This article was created by a now-blocked sock per this SPI Jytdog (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of information about cultured meatball and poultry products

Jytdog keeps trying, in different ways, to revert the inclusion of two events in Memphis Meats' history where they launched the world's first cultured meatball and the world's first cultured poultry (chicken and duck). These are well-documented in multiple RS. I left an edit warring notice on his Talk page. Please give any policy-based reason you have (or someone else has) for why this information should not be included in the article.

The proposed text, in its latest form: "In February 2016, the company revealed a video showing the "world's first cultured meatball." In March 2017, the company made another video, this time showcasing chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, the first cultured poultry-based foods shown to the public."

References

Utsill (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, looks like Kbog had another proposed wording in the meantime. Sorry if I deleted that without justification while trying to revert Jytdog's reversions. I am in favor of the slightly more detail that my proposed wording has, but my main preference is just for the information to be included since it's perhaps the most important information about MM that exists. Utsill (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog endorsed my edit. I think the vid and dates come across as unnecessary detail. But that they were the world's first is notable. Maybe say "The company has produced the world's first cultured meatballs, chicken and duck products." K.Bog 16:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there any WP policy that justifies the exclusion of the other information? I'm still in favor of more detail here. I don't think it's WP:Undue or anything, since it's just information and not a viewpoint. Utsill (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

The content that Kbog generated is good and steers well clear of promoting the company. We have no idea if this company is going to ever be able to scale their product and the failure rate for biotech companies is well over 50%. They are doing very good PR to keep investor interest high (like releasing new videos showing various ways to use their proposed products) while they develop things but at this point we have no idea if this company itself is going to matter much less whether a "first meatball" will matter. Please revert back to Kbog's version which was better. Jytdog (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

This is not about "first meatball", and the main problem with Kbog's version is that it presents it as "first meatball". "Man bites mammal" is not news, "man bites whole new class, the birds" is. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I see no mention in your comment of any policy that suggests that this is too much detail. The video and associated information was covered in many major media outlets, so it seems like the world thinks it's important. Since you have not provided any actual evidence against my position here, I retain my original view. Utsill (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why is a video, or an announcement date "unnecessary detail"?

This is a foodstuff, not a lab reagent. Its appearance is crucial. They're not trying to make sci-fi soylent green, they're trying to make something that will appeal (eventually, when the price works) to average shoppers in supermarkets. It needs to look appetising, not merely sustaining.

Secondly, they have now managed to produce poultry: not just a different species, but a whole separate class. That is novel, and as such warrants the date recording.

Jytdog has given no justification for his deletions here, other than NOTNEWS, which is nonsense. For every other invention on WP we try to record its date. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• In response, Jytdog has now raised this at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Seeking a one way IBAN re Andy Dingley. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree this is "nonsense" on Jytdog's part, or at least strong deletionist advocacy that deviates from WP norms and has no policy basis. I guess the appropriate step is for me to start an RfC assuming we don't reach consensus in the near future. Utsill (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't see further discussion as productive at this point due to the other stuff going on. I am not going to comment further here for a while. Jytdog (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I guess we can wait for an RfC until later, if you still disagree about this page. Utsill (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

instructive

please have a look at Talk:Beepi and its archives, where we had a paid advocate coming to WP to try to urge content in, every time the company WP:FARTed, and wasted a bunch of people's time. The company is now bankrupt. We are an encyclopedia - we don't allow press releases and news pieces that companies put out to drive investor interest drive our articles. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why their announcement of being the first (AFAIK) to shift the cell culturing technique from mammals to birds fails NOTNEWS. That is not a trivial change, it is a noteworthy innovation to have achieved it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Andy a quick pubmed search shows that people have been culturing avian striated muscle cells since at least the early 1970s (pubmed search). They have not published science papers describing their technique for creating avian muscle tissue and there are no reviews by other scientists in the field, so this is (obviously) not about science.. it is a business thing.

The business question here is whether this company will be able to scale up any of their proposed products cost-efficiently enough so that when they start to sell stuff they will be able to survive as a business. It also remains to be seen whether it will be super expensive and something only rich people buy or whether it will be cheap enough to challenge the animal meat market for everyday people. Those things are completely unknown at this point. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

In the volume for bulk fooodstufs? No.

Having tried to intimidate me with ANI, blackened me by connecting me to a paid editing scheme, now you're trying to grab the academic high ground and start citing Pubmed. You are _so_ predictable. This is what you always do: you threaten and bully, knowing that many new editors will be intimidated by it, and if they're resistant to it you claim to be some sort of superior editor who knows better than anyone else. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Your only comment here about content is "In the volume for bulk fooodstufs? No. " and I don't understand what you are trying to say. Please elaborate In any case I am not going to comment further here for a while as there is too much static right now. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (redact Jytdog (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC))

I agree that Jytdog is threatening/bullying new editors and am saddened by it, but perhaps we should keep that discussion on the Noticeboard page? (I don't know.) Utsill (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the future of MM is very important here. These are major events covered in major media outlets for long periods of time (or at least, the meatball event has been. the poultry event is too new to tell directly.) That's what matters. Also, to be clear, these are not news stories written by MM as Jytdog suggests. Utsill (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Of course the future of the company matters. If they go bankrupt tomorrow, they will have accomplished nothing and in four years no one will remember or care about them. And the failure rate of biotech companies is very high. Jytdog (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Basic Questions

Third party: This debate seems pretty heated, and I feel like it's actually pretty resolvable (at least as it pertains to this page). It comes down to two basic questions:

1. Should the article specifically address that Memphis Meats has been credited with created the "first meatless meatball" (or other related products), or do such reports qualify as the kind of material barred under WP:NOTNEWSPAPER?
2. Should the article include the fact that the company announced the "meatball" (or other related products) with a video?

The concerns over whether the company will be able to scale their production, while valid (and even mentioned in non-news sources), don't seem to relate to the question. We're not declaring the imminent mass-marketing of the invention; we're merely declaring that the invention happened and received coverage as a feat. The concerns over whether the production is a marketing stunt seem off-base: we're not including news that a video went viral; we're including information that multiple reliable sources reported on and found significant. (I think it's also clear that this goes beyond the "routine news reporting on things like announcements" covered by the NotNews policy.)

I'm less sold on the inclusion of the fact that a video was used for the announcement. I understand why the video format may have been chosen by the company (as astutely noted above), but that does not necessarily mean that the format is notable and encyclopedic. Frankly, this does feel a little-news-item-y as it stands: "On this date ... Then, on this date ....". "Revealed" also strikes me as a little much; it attaches a degree of promotion, though "made" is problematic as well. Rather than listing when both videos were produced, why not say something like ...

“ In early 2017, the company began releasing videos showcasing a variety of cultured meats, including what the company deemed 'the first meatless meatball' in February and cultured poultry products in March. ”

Can someone check to make sure the Wallstreet Journal calls the cultured poultry the "first cultured poultry"? I see "first cultured chicken strips," but then the paywall blocks me, and I noticed the other sources make no such claim--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I don't think there's the need for "what the company deemed" given that RS's have confirmed this, and the meatball was in early 2016. I also think the specifics of the cultured poultry products are important enough details to include here. Not sure what others think of your proposition. Utsill (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Utsill! I'd just point out that the source we currently rely on says "what it’s calling the 'world’s first cultured meatball'" (referring to Memphis Meats); not that it actually is the world's first; I believe that's why we currently put the term in quotation marks. (I'm certainly not saying that other sources might say definitively that it is the world's first.) I agree on the specific poultry products - although what I'm currently concerned about is that I don't think our sources support saying they were the 'first' poultry products. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

“ In January 2016, the company released a video showcasing what it deemed "the world's first meatless meatball"; in March 2017, the release was followed up with a video of cultured chicken tenders and duck a l’orange. ”

(Wording here is admittedly not great - though I think it's important to have some narrative cohesion as opposed to the current format of: "On this date ... X. On THIS date ... Y.")--216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• To respond to the OP, no and no. This is all hype for investors. The company has no products. There is no reason to say much of anything about the release of the videos, which are just very typical (and skillful) premarket biotech PR to maintain investor interest. We are not a newspaper nor a PR vehicle for the company. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • And yet no one is arguing that the company itself is not notable. So your argument is left being: the company is notable ... but nothing it has done (or which it has received press for) is? Oh wait - except for how much it cost. ... That seems absurdist; there's no actual rhyme or reason to what you're including and what you're omitting. Furthermore, as I linked - more than just news sources have commented on this.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Nope it is not absurdist. For early stage biotech companies it is very often the case that there is enough press about them to pass GNG but not much of enduring interest to say. Jytdog (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Woah careful there, notability guidelines do not apply to content. But again, you don't have any rhyme or reason for what you do / don't include. It seems like if it was totally up to you the article would say "In 2016, the company made    redacted    BUT IT COST $18,000 SO GET OUT OF HERE." We have to be consistent--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

See WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. There are lots of reasons we say "no" to excessive detail. Jytdog (talk) 03:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

You're throw a lot of policies out in lieu of making actual arguments. I think each editor here is familiar with the policies. In fact, I was just pointing out that one of the policies you just threw out doesn't actually apply to this situation, specifically, you're invocation of GNG.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Current Proposal

I don't know why the meatball bit is in quotes. There are sources that say the meatball was first "Memphis Meats created the world's first cultured meatball." and that the poultry was the first chicken "The World's First Lab-Grown Chicken Finger Was Just Unveiled". I also can't find a "first poultry" source. Given the "poultry" milestone seems more important than "chicken" or "duck" specifically, I'd be in favor of a subjective statement of "first poultry." For example,

“ In January 2016, the company released a video showcasing the world's first cultured meatball; in March 2017, they produced revealed chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, what the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry. ”

My other small changes there were "cultured meatball" instead of "meatless meatball" (because many refer to plant-based meatballs, which have been around for years, as meatless, so that's not really accurate or interesting), removing the quotes (because RS's confirmed the meatball being first; I would be okay with not making this change), removing the "followed up" phrase (because I don't think the releases were really paired together; I would be okay not making this change), and taking out the second "video" and "cultured" references (because they read as a bit redundant; I would be okay not making this change). If the revised version seems good to you, I'd venture to say we have consensus and you or I can edit the main page. Utsill (talk) 13:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Endorse with one concern. There are technicalities off in such a sentence (releasing the video in March isn't necessarily the same as producing in March), but I think it achieves a nice balance between not sounding news-y and still providing all the relevant information. My only concern is that we have a link to the company deeming the chicken tenders & duck the "first cultured poultry" (or a news article that says the company made that claim). Great job.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 17:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I'm happy with "revealed" instead of "produced" to fix the technicality, though maybe people think that's promotional, and we can add their website as a primary source citation. Utsill (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• oppose. entirely promotional, transmitting the company's PR. Not encyclopedic. Cost of goods is, however, a basic business matter and worth including. Jytdog (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Contentious content

The company has produced cultured meatballs, chicken and duck products.

References

I have moved the content here for the time being. I am not sure just how reliable fox news is for scientific claims. The WSJ article is re-quoting an employee of the company. The fortune article is similar (and relies on the WSJ article) and so is the CNET article. Note that these articles are the type which requote a press release. It's not a report where the reporter is vouching for the accuracy of the claims. I don't think this should be there in the article. This is also is the type of WP:NOTNEWS coverage we generally avoid. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm largely in favor of that version, though above various users were worried about mentioning that its a video, using specifics to define the chicken / duck products ("chicken tenders," "duck a l'orange"), etc. I think I disagree with you on the type of statement this is: that is, it's not necessarily a scientific claim. It seems like we all accept that the company Mystery Meats, is notable, and, more than an news release, this seems to be at the heart of what the company does; it does not qualify as "routine reporting."--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

We're trying to reach consensus on this issue already. I'm going to avoid commenting here since the above section was first to discuss this issue. Utsill (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• these are prototype products. Not actual products. The content also needs tweaking per RELTIME. Something like the following would be OK, "As of 2017 the company had demonstrated prototype cultured meatballs, chicken and duck products."Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Please stop editing until we reach consensus

Please do not edit the section of the page we are discussing above while we have not yet reached consensus. We're almost there, really, so close... See WP:AVOIDEDITWAR and WP:BRD. Utsill (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Enough of this fiddle-faddle

I have fully protected the page, and yes, I know it's the wrong version. Frankly, I don't care who is right or wrong here; everyone involved is an editor with some experience, so use the talk-page to find consensus. Regards. Lectonar (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

:) thanks. We'll have to wait 24 hours for Utsill to become unblocked to do that work. Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes...I just saw...restriction overkill :). Lectonar (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The block got removed. Please stop harassing new editors just because you think they are "advocates." Good faith would do wonders for much of WP! Utsill (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks! Is there a place to request this for similar future issues if they come up? Utsill (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (Note: Jytdog deleted my two comments above, accusing them of being a "personal attack." Only one out of five sentences I wrote could plausibly be a personal attack, and yet Jytdog deleted all of them. This is the exact 'fudging the rules' sort of thing that Jytdog keeps doing. I also don't feel like it was a personal attack. It was a request for Jytdog to desist his personal attacks on this talk page. We can do an RfC on that sentence if need be, but I don't want to give into Jytdog's bullying.) Utsill (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Without taking sides here...@Jytdog: and @Utsill:: just stop sniping at each other, assume the assumption good faith (I know it is difficult especially when one is passionate about something, and even more so when one thinks to be the one who is right). This is also a warning to you two. There is essentially no need for a breach of 3RR to get blocked for edit-warring (and I know you must be aware of this, but sometimes being reminded of such banalities can provide a little nudge in the right direction). Lectonar (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Way forward

I would like to suggest a way to resolve the content dispute. There are some editors who want to maximize the content about the claims of the company, and others who want to minimize them.

I am suggesting that Utsill as a representative of the maximal perspective, have a crack at presenting a version of the article here that they are happy with. (you can still copy the source of the article even though it is locked, and those versions can be presented here).

I will also present a version to my liking.

If anybody has a version they can of course present it too.

Once we have the various versions, we can consoildate to main candidates, and hold an RfC and have the community determine which new version is more compliant with policies and guidelines.

Once the page is unlocked, we should restore it to the pre-edit warring version here while the work and RfC take place.

Acceptable? Jytdog (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not maximizing the content. There is one claim about the activity/coverage of the company that I feel should go in, and (I think) you feel it shouldn't go in. I am happy with the article in its current protected state, though I prefer the version in the discussion above that we has been proposed through reasonable discussion aimed at consensus. I think the above discussion is a fine way to resolve this issue, and I worry you're just trying to wear me out by continuing to move the goalposts and bringing administrators in. That being said, if everyone but me feels your proposal is best, I'll be happy to abide. (I worry that everyone else is already worn out of this discussion, especially given what a small issue this is in the scheme of things. Low-importance article, 1-2 sentences...) Utsill (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you willing to present a version of the article here or not? Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. To repeat myself, there is a version above that I'm happy with. I'll quote it here. It would have the existing citations as well as the Memphis Meats blog (since it's the best evidence that they made the poultry claim). The "produced" version is the one another editor was happy with, though I think they would also be happy with "revealed" just haven't said so explicitly.

“ In January 2016, the company released a video showcasing the world's first cultured meatball; in March 2017, they produced revealed chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, what the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry. ”

Utsill (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To explain further - this is a very short article and it is feasible and simple to present the entire article you want to see, here on the Talk page. It will be easier for others to see and judge differences if they are shown in-context as opposed to abstractly. (The quoted bit you present is only part of the disagreements about content in this article.) So are you willing to present your version of the article here? Jytdog (talk) 20:31, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

To repeat myself again, I am happy with the article in its current state, and I would be happier with the article if it had the quote above replacing the last two sentences, as has been discussed over and over. I am not going to copy/paste the article or the quote again. This Talk page is long and disorganized enough already. And of course, I think the article could eventually be improved in other ways, though I haven't worked on figuring out those ways yet. FYI, I am not going to reply very quickly from now on. Repeating myself is not my priority in life nor in WP editing. Utsill (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see the recent chicken announcement included, and I'm happy for this to be done as you describe above. There is no need to boilerplate entire articles onto talk:. I have less of an opinion on the meatballs announcement - why is this so crucial? Does the provision of 'meatball format' represent any similar level of technical advance? As a vat-grown product I don't like to use the term 'slurry', but I'm expecting that what it looks like at first and is then moulded - so aren't any of their (or others') products just one good squeeze away from being a meatball anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, I will take the current version as the preferred "maximal" version, and will present a version I believe better reflects policies and guidelines here, and we can hold the RfC between the two of them. Jytdog (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

First meatball

They may well have been the first people to form cultured beef into a ball, but it seems a little disingeuous to report that as a first without mentioning the cultured beef patty from 2013: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/science/engineering-the-325000-in-vitro-burger.html - MrOllie (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning this would be SYN but this goes to show how bullshitty the press can be when they transmit company hype. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (redact per my remark below Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC))

It is not SYNTH to include another's announcement, with a clear date to it. SYNTH does not preclude the use of a calendar. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. I don't see "meatball" as a notable shift from "burger". Was the meatball simply Memphis Meats' first demonstrated product? In which case it belongs here, but described as, "their first product, a meatball" rather than "their first meatball" or (even worse) "the first meatball". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• My 2 cents: I agree the poultry prototype/video/announcement/coverage is more notable than the meatball, though I still think both are notable. I think the 2013 patty would be good to include for context, but those with a more deletionist view on this article would likely oppose that and I don't think it's very important. I don't think any of this would be WP:SYNTH because it's not a new statement/idea/finding, just adding in an extra fact for context. Utsill (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

actually the cnet article mentioned the hamburger so it wouldn't be syn. but this only matters in the context of the hype-y "first" claims, which we don't need to transmit. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Article versions

There are competing visions for this short article. The first paragraph is not contested:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

References

Version 1 of the 2nd paragraph

As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expects to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. It is also experimenting with stem cells from pigs and chickens. Valeti claims that his product will be more sustainable than beef derived from butchering an animal, which requires 23-to-1 ratio of Calories used to Calories produced. Valeti claims that the company's process will reduce the ratio to 3-to-1. He also claims it will require 90% less water and land. In February 2016, the company revealed a video showing the "world's first cultured meatball." In January 2016, the company released a video showcasing the world's first cultured meatball; in March 2017, they revealed chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, which the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry.

Version 2 of the 2nd paragraph

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactorsusing industrial fermentation. As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. As of March 2017, the company had demonstrated prototype meatball, chicken, and duck products.

References

Version 3 (note, this was added after 3 !votes had been cast; all three !voters notified of change)

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball." The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. The company praised the taste of the product as well as the sustainability benefits. In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l’orange, which the company deemed the world's first cultured poultry. The company said a pound of cultured chicken cost $9,000 and reiterated the expected commercial release of 2021.

References

Version 4 of the 2nd paragraph

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. Memphis Meats has published videos of what it deemed "meatless" meatballs, chicken tenders and duck a l'orange. At the time of their production, the company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, while its cultured chicken and duck products cost $9,000 per pound.

References

Please indicate which version you understand best complies with WP policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC) (redacted v2 to address fuss over industrial fermentation Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)) (version4 added by IP here at 04:37, 22 March 2017 Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Update: Version 4 self-withdrawn in light of work on new version below.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

!votes

• 2nd version. This takes an encyclopedic view and is NPOV and well-sourced. It doesn't serve as a vehicle to transmit or evaluate the hype that this biotech company is generating to keep investor interest while it develops its products, which are not anticipated to reach the market for at least another 4 years. (We will have at least another 4 years of "exciting" PR from this company) Their planned products might never reach the market and even if the products reach the market, their products may never be commercially feasible. The claims about the energy ratios of production are all WP:CRYSTALBALL marketing hype; the company cannot know those figures until they actually succeed in scaling up, which they haven't done yet. There are many reasons why this effort might go no where, and there is no reason for WP to jump every time this startup WP:FARTs. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version. (In case anyone wants to know, I came here when I saw the RfC notice, and I watchlist RfC pages and respond when one seems interesting – but I was also aware previously that there has been a dispute at this page.) For me, this isn't even close. The second version is succinct and to-the-point, whereas the first version is full of WP:CLAIM to a degree that gets cloying, and comes across as both editorial and speculative. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

  The third version was added after my original comment. I still prefer the second version, but I think it would be a good idea to make the third version, with a bit of revision, into a third paragraph. The third version is less of a summary, and more an account of specific events. That would make for a good additional paragraph, I think. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm probably happy with that outcome too. Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, thanks. I see there is now a version 4: I think that it's briefer than is necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

As a general comment, I appreciate that editors just coming now to this RfC are facing a "herding cats" sort of situation, in that a discussion of the content has been going on in parallel with the older options listed above. If nothing else, editors may want to use the RfC choices to indicate how much or how little detail they would like to include, as well as what kinds of details. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't fall for a false dichotomy (update 23:19, 22 March 2017 (UTC) it's now four versions)- this presentation is actually quite contrived. Jytdog's originally only presented the status quo (which no one wanted) and, of course, his ideal version ... directing RFC viewers to choose. I and another user, who both reject this format ... have added alternatives simply in case others come and fall for this transparent vote packaging. More to the point: I have tried to distill the differences between versions down in the section below, but Jytdog insists those are not the real questions. Jytdog insists that this debate is a stand in for a larger moral battle, pitting the true a beautiful Wikipedia users against those who - and this is actually a quotation from him - want to "make this article into a proxy for the company's website and follow the blow-by-blow PR."diff It's not actually necessary to accept this sort of moralizing, which is why most of the users who were involved in the debate above have not participated in this poll. The issue is not "what does this decision mean for future edits?" but rather "what's the best version of the article we can make." Thus, even though I have contributed version 4, I am abstaining from voting. This type of artificial packaging is not consistent with attempting to reach a consensus. It's a bad vote.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(redacted without markup at 22:05, 22 March 2017 in this diff) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jytdog (talk • contribs)

• 3rd version [I currently think this selection of examples to vote amongst is misleading. I guess the 3rd version is still my preferred of these 4, but see the discussion below for better options. I basically agree with JonRichField below.] I agree with 216.12.10.118 that this is a silly comparison, though I'd note that I'm still not sure why people think cultured meat is fermented. I'm pretty sure it isn't. Also, I don't think an explanation of cultured meat is necessary here given there's a linked WP article on it. Utsill (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version.My opinion: factual and not promotional. I think this sentence needs refinement: "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years" I think the point left unwritten is the scaling will make the cost/pound lower which will make the beef price competitively priced with regular beef. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, @CuriousMind01:, you think the sentence should make that point? So e.g. it should say "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years, which would mean the cultured beef is competitively priced with regular beef."? Or something else? Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see discussionCuriousMind01 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version. NPOV, well-sourced, and just like the cultured meat: without any excess fat. - MrOllie (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

  --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version. This reads like something written by a neutral encyclopaedist, with the PR hype removed. Readers will want to know what they've achieved, and maybe what they plan to achieve; not what videos they've made. Maproom (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• Phew! None! I reckon that this version of the RFC has been superseded by the discussion below, for all practical purposes. The exchanges have covered so much ground that I for one am not inclined to remasticate the matter. If Tryptofish, 216, and Jytdog would like to come up with either a proposed single substantive version or a new RFC based on selection of options reflecting their collective or respective preferences, that would be better than trying to resolve this one. It certainly would be better if the concepts were better separated into distinct paragraphs, as some of them have attempted to do, so that we could do better at selecting the resolved from the residual issues instead of trying to settle everything at a go. It also would make better reading. JonRichfield (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• 2nd version, but needs trimming I am not happy with adding a bunch of unverified scientific claims to the article, particularly when the sources themselves say it is simply the company quoting them. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• 2nd version, or 4th. Both concentrate on the most important facts first and give more anecdotal evidence later. 2nd sounds better to me, but 4th is also acceptable. “WarKosign” 07:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Why are we pretending like these things are a package deal? There's no logical reason why the calorie ratio sentence has to go with the specific products sentence. There's no reason why the first sentence in the second version can't go in the first version. Why couldn't the first version mention industrial fermentation? It's a false dichotomy. (As I see it ... option 1 is basically the status quo, which currently everyone wants changed ... and option 2 is Jytdog's version.) As stated, we should settle on basic questions and answer them individually.

1. Category: How should we address the cultured products?
   1. Should we mention how those products were announced (via video)?
   2. Should we mention anything else about the publicity?
   3. Should we mention the specific products or generalize them (i.e. "chicken tenders" or "chicken"?)
2. Category: What should we detail about production?
   1. Should we mention the companies plans for production?
   2. Should we mention the claims about calories used:produced ratios?
   3. Should we mention costs?

That simply makes more sense.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this, though I appreciate Jytdog putting forward a concrete decision we can make. There are clearly too many variables being shoved together here with the second choice having both Jytdog's more debatable suggestions as well as some uncontroversial improvements. I'd also note that Memphis Meats nor any other cultured meat lab I know of is planning to use fermentation in their products. I'm not sure where Jytdog is getting that notion from. My suggestion version, just splicing together these two options in a way that retains the information but also maintains coherence and encyclopedic perspective, is:

Note - moved into body of Rfc Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I expect this version could be improved. My main opinion here is just that we should include all of the information, at least regarding the "firsts." I'm flexible on wording, order, etc. I tried to defuse the Company Founder's sustainability claims, since I think those are borderline promotional given the source. Utsill (talk) 00:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Moved it up into the RfC Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To clarify myself, I'd like people who believe cultured meat uses fermentation to provide RS('s) supporting that claim if they want it included in the article because I currently believe it is not part of the process. Utsill (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• The key distinction is whether or not the article will include all the blow-by-blow of the company's PR hype as it is released. The 2nd version is (in my view) written for the long term, with an NPOV. The 1st and 3rd violates NOTNEWS and UNDUE by following the blow-by-blow and amplifying the hype. There really is no compromise between doing so or not, which is why I went the RfC route. Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
• Note - addressed objection to "industrial fermentation". That is a side show to whether or not we transmit and amplify the blow-by-blow hype. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, First: I respect the effort; I honestly understand it is extremely difficult to work out conclusions on things like this (and, full disclosure: I am not exactly attached to any option as it stands). Still, I do think the suggestion that there is no compromise is misguided. This notion that we have two sets of editors, one supporting NPOV and one supporting turning WP into a PR machine ... well, it's a bit Manichaean, no? This isn't the forces of good vs. the forces of evil. I still feel like, while more difficult, answering the questions above is the best route. Why not, for example, have a discussion on whether or not to include that the company used videos to announce their cultured products? I think it might be worth acknowledging that there are some users who might think the modality is worthy of inclusion (I myself am *totally* apathetic on that subject - you'll notice I haven't mentioned it), and that does't necessarily mean that they are evil PR supporters.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I have written nothing about anybody here having a financial interest in this article. Please don't misrepresent what i have written. Jytdog (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

... Sorry didn't mean to suggest that - when I said "corporate PR sponsors" I meant supporters of corporate PR (clarified). Because seriously, you're treating the opposing side as though it's a group of users who are in favor of turning WP into a PR machine. This notion that "COMPROMISE IS FUTILE AND IMPOSSIBLE" is just not rooted in the tone of this page. Again: Why not, for example, have a discussion on whether or not to include that the company used videos to announce their cultured products? Instead you're saying "Here's the good side / here's the evil side." It's not productive. We can find a middle ground.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. There really is no middle ground between a perspective that aims to add content every time the company makes a press release and the press covers it, or when the company makes a posting on its own blog on the one hand, and a more conservative, longterm encyclopedic view on the other. The method of PR (video or standard press release or blog posting) is very secondary to what we are actually doing here. If the community decides to make this article into a proxy for the company's website and follow the blow-by-blow PR, then sure, the trivia about how PR is conducted could be included. In that case, why not?

The fundamental question is what is Wikipedia? Per WP:NOT, we are not a vehicle for WP:PROMO and we are WP:NOTNEWS and we don't include WP:CRYSTALBALL predictions and per NPOV all that is UNDUE. That is what version 2 expresses. It is not about good and evil. Just what WP is, and what it isn't. Jytdog (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, no one is suggesting that we should update this Wikipedia page every time the company makes a new announcement. The problem is that you're assuming that is the opposing perspective, and that assumption is tainting your ability to acquire a consensus. Again, you're straw manning. And that's literally what I started this convo to try to pull everyone back from: pretending like this is good vs. evil. It's not. And Crystal Ball doesn't apply here - no one is suggesting a sentence saying "The meat will CHANGE THE WORLD," nor is anyone suggesting a sentence saying "The company will probably fail." In fact, all of the content questions, if you would look at them, concern events that have already occurred and how we treat them. Whether or not we say that the company announced its products with a video has nothing to do with predicting the future. The questions are more specific, and the issue is far more complicated than you're treating it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear your perspective on what you think i have been saying. I don't agree with it nor with your characterizations of it, which continue to misrepresent it, bizarrely. (I said nothing about the mode of PR itself having anything to do with NOT or UNDUE). I started the RfC to bring in more perspectives, and it will run, and we will see what the community says. Jytdog (talk) 04:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC) (added clarification Jytdog (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC))

Off-topic and personalizing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Reminder: the goal is to use discussion to build a consensus, not present a false dichotomy for users to vote on. I've started a conversation below on the actual questions under consideration, would appreciate your input.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Consensus will be established by assessing the policy-and-guideline-based !votes in the RfC. We don't have to solve this now - the RfC will run its 30 days and we will see where it ends up. The questions below do not accurately represent the points of dissent; the versions above do. I am not responding further to you here. You are WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Update: To clarify, Jytdog accused me of bludgeoning after I had already responded here. So this is the real issue with the good vs. evil approach. The questions below are actually the differences between the versions you proposed. It's just you want them to be bundled up into a dichotomy; you're packaging those questions and pretending like there's a larger theme or reason that they have to be connected. There's not.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Note, comment to which I responded was deleted here, leaving the thread below as nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Note: I incorporated my comment, which was moved here by Jytdog, into my vote here, for those who are interested ... although this line of discussion was always nonsense--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC) I left your v4 in the RfC but moved your argument for it down here. Please do not amend the RfC in the future; it is not your place to do that. And RfCs need to be neutral - the RfC question itself is not a place to argue for your version, against me, or anything else. Jytdog (talk) Your "please" which presents the false dichotomy comment goes above and mine, pointing out the false dichotomy, goes below? Huh, I can't imagine why you might make that edit. But sure make a vague comment about what my place is.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC) You have made your reviews on the RfC very clear. You have said it so many times that you have formed a WP:Wall of text and it is unlikely anyone will read through this discussion section, since it has become so long. This is the self-defeating aspect of bludgeoning a discussion. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Breaking News: "You're writing too much," complains local user who has written more than anyone (how's the WP:ANI going?).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Calm talk, everyone. Please focus on the content, not one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Suggestion

Looking at how the RfC discussion has been going, and also at the discussion below about forward-looking statements, I'd like to suggest a 3-paragraph version for the page. I'm using the current version for paragraph 1, the 2nd proposal for paragraph 2 (with the correction about the bioreactor), and a modification of the 3rd proposal for paragraph 3, taking into account the comments about it, as well as continuity.

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. As of February 2016, it cost the company $18,000 to produce one pound of in-vitro beef, but the company expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years. As of March 2017, the company had demonstrated prototype meatball, chicken, and duck products.

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball." The company drew attention the taste of the product as well as sustainability considerations. In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l'orange, which the company described as the world's first cultured poultry, saying that commercial release is expected for 2021.

References

I tend to think that it would be better to have three paragraphs of text, instead of two. Perhaps this could be a starting point. I hope it helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I generally like your extension! There may be some redundancy, but beyond that I have two major questions: [1] if we include the cost for beef ... should we also include the cost for the poultry? [2] Do we have a reliable source saying that the company called the faux-chicken/duck the "world's first cultured poultry"? I know that's been a claim of a few versions, but I can't even find the word "poultry" mentioned in these linked sources.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the 3rd paragraph as UNDUE and promotional. Please keep in mind that we have 4 more years (probably) of the company coming out with more PR before they launch any actual products... and they may never do. More generally, the RfC started only yesterday; it is barely underway and too early to assess anything. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Your text implies you think the company does not meet notability guidelines. Have you considered WP:AFD? After all, you repeatedly mention that the company has no products, and you seem highly concerned with using information from news articles, yet all of the sources in this article are news articles. (So really, you're just picking and choosing which information you like from those articles, while complaining that anyone who picks different pieces of the articles is violating policy, specifically WP:NOTNEWS ... interesting tactic.)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) About the pricing for poultry, I just don't think it's that interesting, and leaving it out helps a bit with avoiding making it sound promotional. About sourcing for the poultry claim, I haven't checked it, and given the concerns about being promotional, I'd say strike it. About the complaining about undue, I think that's nonsense (and annoying). The proposed text simply provides a bit more information, and if it later becomes outdated, it can be revised then. And it's not too early to make suggestions. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

IP, the notability issue was raised above and I responded there, in this diff. You again misrepresent what i have already written. Trypto, sorry you are annoyed: I would and do say the same about WP reporting the blow-by-blow PR of any biotech company, or litigation, or whatever. Jytdog (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: User:Jytdog oh when you tried to apply WP:GNG to content, even though notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article? Got it.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS andWP:UNDUE have nothing to do with GNG; I did not apply GNG to content. Jytdog (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'll take your word for it; I must have misunderstood your posts (despite their great numbers). I'm focusing on Tryptofish's draft below (this is what working to a consensus looks like); I think we should both make this less personal.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: User:Tryptofish I did try to update Version 4 to include both the pricing for the beef and poultry products (simply because I think if one is valid for inclusion, per WP:NOTPAPER the other should be included; it's just more information). That said, I still like your version. I would certainly be satisfied if that was the final draft. Frankly, I'd probably be satisfied with any of the versions proposed, even Jytdog's (though I prefer yours and mine to his). The only thing that I think is shoddy is Jytdog turning this into a vote (asking for people to pick a side, which he does at the top of the RFC, is asking for a vote, regardless of whether you call them "not votes") and building a straw man - as he does above (no one is arguing the article should be a blow by blow PR report). Now we have a question of what to do with this version ... do you want to add it as "Version 5" to the RFC? We'd then have to notify previous voters.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Since we are talking, in part, about what annoys me, I strongly advise both of you to stop commenting on one another's tactics, motivations, nonadherence to policy, or anything else except the page content. I'm getting real close to opening a new ANI section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

In February 2016, the company released a video showing what it called "the world's first cultured meatball."[1][5][6] The company drew attention the taste of the product as well as sustainability considerations.[6] In March 2017, it release a similar video showing chicken tenders and duck a l'orange, which the company described as the world's first cultured poultry, saying that commercial release is expected for 2021.[3][4][7] I am not comfortable adding this per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:WEIGHT. This is reported by WSJ and other newspaper largely quoted it. I don't considered these "intellectually independent" sources. Not every incident is noteworthy enough to be included, particularly ones in which it is the company claiming something. Personally, I am even on the fence about the notability of this company. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:02, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Two quick things: 1) just for convenience, the current version of this work is featured below (in the last section break; I'm about to try to make this mass of text cleaner with sections). 2) I think it's important to note that the WSJ piece is not a "breaking news: this happened" piece, like the other articles are, nor is the Common Reader piece. Besides those notes, I might agree that there could be a notability issue with the entire company here, but if the company is notable, as I've detailed, I disagree with the NOTNEWS invocation.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Clean break

Alright - starting a new section. I realize I got too heated, I'll put aside detailing what caused that and just start fresh here. I do still have major concerns about voting on this, but this conversation can run parallel to the voting. Tryptofish, I modified my version 4 after I saw your version (throwing in the additional information concerning price), but I'm not thoroughly attached to anything. Just for the sake of throwing the idea out there - here's a further merge. Jytdog, I think this current iterationl downplays some of the elements you dislike:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016, Memphis Meats has published a videos of a what it deemed described as "meatless" cultured meatball; the company followed up the clip with a March 2017 video featuring what it described as cultured chicken and duck.

At the time of their production, the company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, while its cultured chicken and duck products cost $9,000 per pound. The company claims that anticipates commercial releases of the products are expected for by 2021.

References

Now we have both costs (yay extra info!); the specific names of the products while a "company called" line used to emphasize that those names were generated by the company, and the release date (which I actually did not include in my version because I thought that line sounded a bit promo-y, but I see Jytdog, Utsill and Tryptofish all think it is worth mentioning). Again, I'm not attached to anything in this - if you think the poultry price is too much - let's kill it. I'm up for whatever.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Dates are lacking (compare with Tryptofish's), which are needed per WP:RELTIME. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

My principal concern is with the last sentence. If it's going to be a single sentence, I'd rather just move it into the second paragraph. And I do not like the verb "to claim" here, per WP:CLAIM. I would change "deemed" to "described as", and "claims" to "projects". Also, some references got repeated. If those things were to be fixed, I'd be fine with this version. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm okay with all of those things! Is that what everyone agrees to? Update: I replaced deemed with "described as"; I replaced "claims" with "anticipates" (it sounds a little less promotional to me than projects, but I'm not dying on that hill if someone prefers projects); and I removed relative "has" per WP:RELTIME (and Jytdog's suggestion). I had some difficulty putting in the precise years, though if one of you wants to articulate them, by all means!--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

This leaves out what Utsill wanted and that will be a key person to wait for. New issue - I am unaware of the company describing its products as "meatless" and the quotes make it appear that this is quoting them; i checked the texts of the sources and none of them say that (might be in a video). Jytdog (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Great catch - in fact, it's definitely not meatless; they start with meat cells. I scratched meatless from the entry and replaced it with cultured. Also - Tryptofish - having now watched the videos, I have to apologize - the company itself describes the chicken and duck as "the first [non-slaughtered] chicken." (So it's not in the reliable sources, but it is in the company's video)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The date thing can be solved by "As of X" as in trypto's version. We don't need the exact dates when the videos published; it is true that "as of march 2017" the company had published the 3 videos. The meat cost was "as of Feb 2016" and the poultry cost was "as of march 2017". Jytdog (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't want to create a mountain out of a mole hill on this, but I don't love "as of" for saying the company made videos. (Yes, technically I suppose the sentence could date ... in the sense that the company could make ... more videos? ... but for me that stretches the limits of what "as of" is used for). I tried including exact dates (and a time of the production line for the costs), and I included "followed up" (which I had Utsill and I had previously questioned whether to use), which I think I feel much more confident doing now that I've watched their chicken/duck video, which opens with "One year after making history with the world's first clean meatball." --216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Total self reversal here: I changed chicken tenders to "chicken" and duck a l'orange to "duck." ... I don't know where the duck a l'orange originally came from (I suppose I trusted the prior versions) .... but in the video all Valeti says plainly "chicken" and "duck" (he doesn't even say "a l'orange").--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

just so there are dates. Jytdog (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done, I think? (Right?)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The company said the production cost of its in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and that the production cost of its cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated commercial releases of the its products by 2021, once it cut production costs and developed a replacement for fetal bovine serum.

References

• i fixed the date parameters in the references (we don't need accessdate for articles that have a dateline, and we should cite the dateline), addressed some informalities in the style and made some other style tweaks (e.g the WL for cultured goes to culture), and removed the redaction markup. There is some WP:OVERCITE but i can live with this. Jytdog (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Is that true on access date? I actually had no idea! I assumed Wikipedia citation style was basically off-brand Chicago. And that looks great to me - I re-added a cultured link - but this time to the right page, Cultured meat.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 01:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• This isn't that bad. I would change it in the following ways:

• I would include the dish names for the chicken (chicken tenders) and duck (duck a l'orange). I think the fact that these dishes were produced, and not other chicken/duck dishes, is important information for the field of biotechnology and cultured meat but especially for those interested in the social and cultural culinary content of the article.
• I would include the sentence, "The company praised the taste of the product as well as the sustainability benefits," or a similar one. When the company's activities have been covered by RS's, the taste and sustainability has been strongly emphasized. Indeed, if these products don't match non-cultured meat on taste, and don't exceed in sustainability, they are not nearly as important to the food system. I think the sentence sufficiently qualifies that those benefits have not been verified by third parties, but I would be okay with additional qualification.
• I would replace "in-vitro" with "cultured." I think in-vitro is an inaccessible term to many people, and we've already used cultured in the article (it's inaccessible without introduction as well). No need to add unnecessary complexity. In fact, it'd probably be good to note in the first sentence of the second paragraph that it's just a description of the cultured meat process.
• I would change "commercial releases of the products" to "commercial release." I don't think they have stated that they will be releasing multiple products, just that they plan to do some releasing (maybe of just one product) in 2021.

Utsill (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Various responses from the IP. I'm not strongly in favor or opposed to any of these, but here are my general thoughts:

• I initially was in favor of the dishes being named, and there are some sources that specify the dishes (like Vice), so I'd be okay throwing it back in, although the company itself doesn't seem to claim that those choices were at all relevant, so I'd be worried that that evaluation is OR.
• Saying that the company praised its own product seems a little excessive. I can't imagine a film page including a line like "Dreamworks called it great!" At the same time, the sources do seem to note the claim.
• I personally think using both in-vitro and cultured is fine; I don't consider in-vitro to be inaccessible, but whichever.
• Does the company not claim a release for the chicken? If so, that change should definitely happen. P.s. everybody I have discovered that another person on this IP address (in my apartment building) is also editing from WP ... so I will likely be retiring so that there isn't confusion.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Minor, but I think a better analogy than "Dreamworks called it great!" would be "Dreamworks said the film inspired viewers to care more about the environment." I can definitely imagine a film page including that. Utsill (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with anything along these lines. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
• I am with the IP on their responses to Utsill's bullets, but stronger. no to #1 and #2, don't care one way or the other about #3 or #4. Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding: I think this sentence needs refinement: "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years" I think the point left unwritten is the scaling will make the cost/pound lower which will make the beef price competitively priced with regular beef. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, @CuriousMind01:, you think the sentence should make that point? So e.g. it should say "The company claimed it cost $18,000 to produce one pound of cultured beef, but it expected to scale the process up and sell to consumers within five years, which would mean the cultured beef is competitively priced with regular beef."? Or something else? Utsill (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Draft: "The company claimed a pound of cultured beef cost $18,000 to produce, and plans to increase production to make the beef cost/pound lower and competitively priced to buying consumers."CuriousMind01 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. For what it's worth, I'm fine with that if it also included "within five years," "by 2021," or some version of that piece of information. Utsill (talk) 21:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to throw a wrench in after I said it was ok with me, but I would object to making forward-looking statements about improving costs unless we have an independent source that says that the price will come down. (Also, WP:CLAIM.) I think that I could go along with: "The company claimed said a pound of cultured beef cost $18,000 to produce, and plans to increase production and reduce prices." That's as far as I would be willing to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing to be said here; it is obvious that getting costs someplace reasonable is a key hurdle for them. (fwiw, the price of gold today is about $19,000 per pound) Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The specific timeline is what seems important, not just that "getting costs someplace reasonable is a key hurdle for them." I think that comment is a strawman argument. Utsill (talk) 01:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The proposed content does have the projected timeline. If you are not going to agree to this compromise version, we'll just let the RfC run. You can see how things are trending but of course we will wait to see what the close is. There is no point continuing our basic disagreement about what WP is for in many small discussions that just replay the basic disagreement. Jytdog (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Quick note: CuriousMind01 is responding to a sentence in the article as written, not the proposed version above. That said I think we can mention something about how the company plans to reduce cost - as written the final two sentences in the current proposal could make a reader think that the company is planning a release that costs $18,000 per pound. Also we could mention that the company hopes to replace its use of fetal bovine serum with a plant based substitute (per WSJ and The Common Reader). So perhaps:
"The company said it anticipated commercial releases of the products by 2021, after it cuts costs and finds a plant-based substitute for fetal bovine serum."
--216.12.10.118 (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I follow this field closely, and I believe that Memphis Meats has neither confirmed nor denied what kind of serum they're using. I'd guess the reason for that is that they don't want other companies to know how easy/hard for them it has been to do so, because they might indicate which method worked for MM. Utsill (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Careful on the OR front there. Two reliable sources say they're using fetal bovine serum. Here's the Wall Street Journal Article:

"While the source cells can be collected from animals without slaughtering them, Memphis Meats and others have relied on fetal bovine serum, drawn from unborn calves' blood, to help start the process. Mr. Valeti said Memphis Meats will be able to replace the serum with a plant-based alternative in the near future, and Mr. Post says he also expects to be able to eliminate its use. Without the serum, there will be no need for antibiotics, according to the researchers"

--137.54.45.206 (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

That quote does not say they're using fetal bovine serum, just that they were using it to some extent - not in all products - in early 2016. I don't disagree with that claim. It's not WP:OR to be unwilling to broaden a claim in this way. Utsill (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

To be clear: the OR I was discussing was the "I follow the field closely, and I believe" line. Certainly the valence of the opinion does not determine whether its OR or not - didn't mean to suggest that. I also think that you're adding the "for some products" reading, which isn't included in the text of the Common Reader nor the WSJ.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. To be clear for my statement, that wasn't meant to be OR, only, "If MM had said this somewhere, I think I would know about it." I don't think anything in your quote implies FBS was used in all products, or any other quote I know about. Would be happy to see something saying differently. Utsill (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I mean we have four reliable sources that say Memphis Meats uses FBS, including quite a few that say all cultured meat uses FBS:

• Gizmodo: At this point, all lab-grown meat relies on fetal bovine serum, a nutrient-rich cocktail extracted from the blood of unborn calves. link.
• Vice: No animals are killed in the process, although the company does use fetal bovine serum from unborn calves' blood to get the party started. link
• Wall Street Journal
• Chemistry World: "All companies working in cultured meat use fetal bovine serum (FBS) as the growth medium and are working on replacing it with animal-free alternatives. Derived from unborn calves, FBS is expensive and comes with potential animal welfare and food safety problems. Schulze says Memphis Meats is phasing out the serum while rolling out a proprietary medium. ‘It is an essential tenet of our mission to be completely serum-free,’ he stresses." link

But what reliable source you have to suggest that they are not using FBS? Side note: I'm not sure what to do about the fact that this discussion seemingly hit a semi-consensus on certain topics, but the RFC above seems to be hitting a consensus on version 2.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

My sense from the initial discussion was that consensus was not possible via local discussion because of different viewpoints on WP:NOT. That remains the case per comments here and heck this edit, just today. I will withdraw the RfC if we get clear consensus to leave out the NOTNEWS/PROMO stuff now and in the future, so we don't have to revisit this later. The very clear trend of the RfC is still "leave it out", and if we need to wait 30 days and get a close that says that, so be it; there is no deadline here. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, to be clear, some of your views on WP:NOT seem to have changed (since you said you would be okay with, say, the fact that the company used videos being mentioned, which before you were not at all okay including), yes? Ultimately i'm fine going with version 2 above if, as appears the case, all the established users here want to take a vote. I mean, to be blunt this is what I tried to warn against ... that it, in fact, was possible for a compromise to be made (as evidenced by the progress made since we all started discussing) ... and that people would vote rather than discuss (notice how no one is even looking down here at the current version ... which is why the discussion up top looks nothing like the discussion here and why it looks like there are two different consensuses) but Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is just an essay, so w/e.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

No they have not changed. See this comment above. And I already said why I launched the RfC and while it is still necessary. Jytdog (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Well looks like you changed something (to be clear I commend you for this - the fact that we were all able to adjust what we wanted and start working for a compromise is a great sign - even you, me and Tryptofish had very conflicting views at first!!). But alas, when people are using an RFC as a threat (yikes), I think it's clear the community isn't valuing WP:Consensus. But again, if that's what the community wants, then by all means - we can do the vote. (Of course you could always add this version and then update all of the users that a version 5 has been proposed, but I assume you don't want to do that). I do hope that for your future Wikipedia career, though, that you've learned that there's some value in attempting compromise.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree with any of that and am not responding further; please recall Tryptofish's advice. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to take to supercilious a tone, but I think you can probably understand why I'm frustrated: packaging the debate (which in fact concerned many sub issues and not one overarching issue) was not the way to move forward, as I repeatedly said. I mean, again, you me and Tryptofish all didn't agree at first ... and yet there you are ... in the edit history ... saying you would be fine with a version that the three of us worked on. It's just disappointing; we now have a version that four users have worked on (some of Utsill's recommendations have also been put in, only ones consistent with the version you first proffered) ... and it's not represented in the vote you set up above. Still, a vote is a vote.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• I suggest changing what is now the last sentence of this version to: The company said it anticipated price reductions and commercial release of the products by 2021. Short clear, and it really does not trigger any issues to say simply that they say that they anticipate price reductions. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I like that sentence; although I think mentioning the fetal bovine serum somewhere else in the article might be worth it (again both the Common Reader and the WSJ talk about this).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, to me, the mention of the serum is unclear: either we have to explain why it is used and why it is expensive, or many readers will wonder what it has to do with lowering costs. I'm thinking in terms of general public readers. And a lengthy explanation would be undue weight, so I think it's simpler to just leave it out. (Maybe information about fetal bovine serum would be useful at cultured meat?) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking we wouldn't even have to dwell on the expense, personally I think the use of fetal bovine serum (and the company's desire for an alternative) is itself significant, but fair enough! Let's throw your version in. Are there any remaining objections?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Current version

• As best as I can tell from the talk page history, there has been a tl;dr discussion about the serum (and I do not want to bother reading it carefully, as it appears to be a lot of arguing over something I don't care about) – but nobody has really addressed my point about leaving the whole thing about serum out, altogether. It seems to me that that's what we should do, and then we will be just about done. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, I propose the following:

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to "remake modern animal agriculture" by growing cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The company said the production cost of itsthe in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and that the production cost of its the cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated price cost reductions and commercial release of the its products by 2021.

References

I think that this is consistent with what editors have been saying in the RfC, and it sure looks to me like what we should go with. OK? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend the Chemistry World article - the serum is an issue and you have an employee for the company saying "It's an essential tenet of our mission to be serum-free." You also have many reliable sources noting this reliance as being significant... frankly I think leaving it out is a bit friendly to Memphis Meats, but alas if no one else agree, I'll bow out.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as I said before, I think that we either have to explain the serum in some detail or leave it out, or readers will be confused, and I don't think that it's important enough to explain in detail. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It is actually "cost reductions" that the company has to achieve (which, if they can do it, will allow them to set a competitive price). Don't care either way about the serum. With regard to going with this, there is still opposition from Utsill in this discussion, and folks participated in the pre-RfC discussion who wanted more promotional content like "first X". I don't believe that this can be stably implemented yet. But I am fine with this and with Version 2 in the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not in a hurry. And I agree about "cost". It seems to me that the RfC is in the process of moving the consensus away from the more promotional approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I want to note that I disagree with that assessment of the RfC so far, both in its direction and the loaded statement of one side as a "more promotional approach." It seems to me that average opinions have moved towards inclusionism, perhaps with the exception of the "sustainability benefits" information. Probably not important for us to have this meta-discussion though.Utsill (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Utsill to be clear, do you agree to implement the version above, or not? If you do we can be done here. If not, we'll let the RfC ride. Jytdog (talk) 01:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

That seems like an odd comment ... this discussion is part of the RfC. Huh. Yeah if the question of the RfC was "should we be promotional?" .... well, not a single user every suggested we should be promotional, so thank god we have a "no" answer for that. All in all, I think each of us learned a lot! Utsill, just to be clear, could you bullet your complaints with the current draft again? I know we addressed some of them, so an updated list would be nice. I'm good with this--216.12.10.118 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

There is nothing odd about asking if we have consensus for this version or not, which is exactly what I asked Utsill. Exactly. And please see your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to your "If not, we'll let the RfC ride" notion, which struck me as similar to your previous comment, but absolutely asking if there's a consensus is okay! Didn't mean to imply otherwise. Utsill my mistake - if you do agree on this version we should absolutely roll with it - that's why I mentioned above, "I'm good with this." (Thought that was rather unambiguous but I suppose things happen when interpreting the written language.) I only meant to request a bulleted list if you're unhappy with the version - again, sorry if that somehow wasn't clear.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not happy with the version above. I think I would be happy with it if it (a) included the dish names, (b) included a statement similar about the proposed sustainability/taste benefits, and (c) had the word "cultured" instead of "in-vitro," (d) said "commercial release" instead of "commercial release of the products." As I mentioned above, I think both (a) and (b) are necessary for understanding the social and culinary importance of the company's announcements. I think (c) is a big improvement for reader clarity, and (d) is just for accuracy, since the company did not specify that multiple products are expected to be released in 2021. I think this RfC could continue with the above version contrasted with a version with (a)-(d) implemented if you disagree with (a)-(d). I don't expect to change my mind on (a)-(d) unless I see a bit of WP policy I haven't seen before that suggests they are misguided. Utsill (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, this discussion is extremely convoluted and is making my head spin. Anyway, I think we should leave anything about the serum out of this. Absolutely no mention of scientific claims, unless there are reliable secondary sources backing it up, preferably reliably published papers. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(b) included a statement similar about the proposed sustainability/taste benefits Absolutely not, per WP:NOTPROMO. This kind of stuff goes on their website, not here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for replying User:Utsill. These are the key differences that were already very clear prior to the RfC, and are why I launched the RfC; what you want is still captured by Version 3 in the RfC. There is no need to continue this discussion; the RfC can just ride until it times out. Jytdog (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

"There is no need to continue this discussion; the RfC can just ride until it times out." - The discussion is part of the RfC.

So a few responses to User:Utsill,

• Re (a): a prior version that we all agreed to had the dish names; I actually removed them because the dish names were not something that the company (nor most the reliable sources) emphasized; it seems a little strange for us to emphasize it. You say, "I think the fact that these dishes were produced, and not other chicken/duck dishes, is important information for the field of biotechnology" ... but is a reliable source saying that? Still, while I'm against adding this information back; it's a soft preference. I won't object if it is re-added.
• Re (b):
  • Taste: I'm still pretty strongly against any taste evaluation provided by the company. It just doesn't seem encyclopedic. Again, commenting on the company's promoting the taste on its product seems like commenting on how Dreamworks thought one of its movies was great.
  • Sustainability: I think if we're going to include what the company says about its sustainability ethos, we have to include FBS, which the company has also addressed, but I'd prefer not including any. We currently cover the sustainability argument quite a bit in the cultured meat article. For that reason, I'm against.
• Re (c): We use cultured four times. We use in-vitro once. I hyperlinked in-vitro to add clarity, but I see no reason why "in-vitro" would confuse a reader, and it is an acceptable synonym, as mentioned in the first sentence of the cultured meat article. I think the aversion to using in-vitro doesn't make sense.
• Re (d) I see your point here - I've gone ahead and changed "the" to "its" to improve the accuracy of the sentence. That's the wording the company uses (as well as the reliable sources): "The team expects to continue reducing production costs dramatically, with a target launch of its products to consumers in 2021."

That's all my thoughts.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This a discussion, that has simply continued the disagreement that drove the RfC. The discussion has done nothing to move the needle on the basic disagreement that drove the RfC which is centered on b) and to a lesser extent a). (the difference between Version 2 and Version 3) The purpose of this RfC, as in any RfC, is to get broader input on that basic disagreement. Which is exactly what is happening. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about the reasons for the RfC.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Correction: Which is what is not happening. What's happening is you have people voting on different old versions of the article that don't even reflect the current edition that you, Tryptofish, Utsill and I have worked on ... so the survey is - obvious to anyone reading all of both - very divergent from the discussion (if the RfC had been more specific and not packaged a bunch of random changes into one deal ... that might have been nice), but that's okay! Regardless, let's wait for Utsill to respond before we go any further on assuming that the discussion is fruitless. Listen, I'm not trying to imply that you're being stubborn in any way shape or form. The reality is the current version we've all been discussing (which I guess at some point we can add to the RfC if you're attached to the survey) is the result of a bunch of compromises on all of our parts, and I genuinely give you credit for a lot of it. Mostly, I'm glad Tryptofish stopped us from bickering and we got together and worked up this version. But let's give Utsill more than a passing chance to contribute as well.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC) Several new people have looked at the options presented in the RfC (which accurately capture the differences that have existed from the get-go, and still remain, unchanged) and have provided their thoughts (not just "votes" but policy/guideline based thoughts) and we will get even more as time goes on. The discussion and versions down here, all just develop version 2 a little, and leave out version 3. There are people who remain committed to version 3 and the approach that generates it. Of course if Utsill will yield to consensus earlier than the 30 days, that would be fine. if it takes a close to get them to yield, so be it. Jytdog (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC) For future reference, getting to this point - have the disagreement narrowed down to two sentences ... and THEN calling in a third party or RfC would have been the better strategy. User:Jytdog, I actually suspect you and I agree on the unstated issues here (see the first three bullet points I wrote just above, I think we're in agreement there), but this kind of transposition is just not at all refined. At best the survey indicates how editors preferred content in a certain context ... Furthermore, should we do another survey between Version 2 and this current proposal (which did, I think we can acknowledge, combine elements of all the versions)? Should this proposal be added to the survey? There are lots of questions. Fortunately, I'm not giving up the discussion just yet.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC) The difference and the commitments were already clear before I launched the RfC. That is why I launched it. I went along with this discussion because that is what I do; I have also been aware that this discussion was unlikely to resolve the fundamental disagreement Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify - are you and I in agreement on the remaining questions?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If I had to pick one of (a)-(d) to "fight for," one I think is most important, it'd be the inclusion of the purported sustainability of the product. It is the case that I prefer the above version to Version #2 in the RfC !votes list of versions. I am also not-that-strongly-against dropping my arguments of (c) and (d), since they are about clarity, not the actual information in the article. Utsill (talk) 20:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Utsill, the key issue is your b), which is in your version 3 and not in version 2 or in the elaboration of version 2. If you will accept the version down here and not try to add the stuff in your b and version 3, we can be done here. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up: not for nothing, I think I already fixed "d" (see above - used the company wording that was also used in reliable sources). Also: User: Tryptofish, good catch on price --> cost.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

It was Jytdog who pointed out the price/cost thing. I simply implemented it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Props to User:Jytdog then (I was originally correct in my mistake! ; ) )--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You did fix (d), though my criticism was also unwarranted. Thanks for sharing that press release. It changed my mind. Utsill (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If we are going to say "in vitro", I agree that it needs to be blue-linked. But I would also go along with changing it to "cultured", if that gets us to consensus. It's not a big deal to me, and I've been thinking that "in vitro" has sounded a bit clunky, whereas it would not be too repetitive to change it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I can live with either of those options as well. Utsill (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned I was a soft against on this, in-vitro is currently hyperlinked, but okay let's do cultured. --216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The Final Point of Contention - Sustainability

Okay User:Utsill, I'll admit I'm initially opposed to this, as I mentioned above, but I am much more open to a sustainability discussion than I am to, say, the company's reports of its products tastes. I think the key question is how do you think we should address sustainability? Could you do a mock up sentence? That the company has a certain ethos might be notable, but us speculating on the impact of cultured meat wouldn't be appropriate (and a discussion of the environmental impact of cultured meat is already on cultured meat)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for all the fixes. I am much happier with the current version, and I do think the case for the sustainability information is much stronger than that for the taste information. I think the sustainability info doesn't need a whole sentence. Just modify the existing sentence to, "In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, praising it as a more sustainable food than conventional meat, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes." Note, I would still prefer this to say, "In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, praising it as a more sustainable food than conventional meat, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken tenders and duck a l'orange." Utsill (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I guess my objection rests in ... why does the company's "praise" for its own product deserve mention?--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let me suggest this: in paragraph 2, change and to manufacture the meat products in to and to manufacture sustainable meat products in. (Change "the" → "sustainable".) That frames it in terms of stated intention, instead of in terms of self-praise. Would that work? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I don't care whether it's framed as self-praise or intent, as long as the information about the social context is there. Utsill (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's important - really, essential - to understanding why Memphis Meats' announcements have been such a big deal. Few people care if MM came out with a meatball that had cool tech behind it, but no benefits for sustainability. This is the claim they're making that makes their work interesting and important in the grander scheme of things - because of its potential to create a more sustainable meat industry. You can see this in all the media coverage of their work and discussion of it by public figures. Utsill (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be good with Tryptofish's version! What are your thoughts Utsill? (And Jytdog)--216.12.10.118 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The costs of animal-generated meat are well known. A company that could sustainably and affordably provide cultured meat would of course be not only interesting but important. Whether this company will be able to actually do that, is unknown - they haven't figured out scale-up yet, so they can't figure out their actual cost of goods nor the environmental cost of those goods. Their sustainability claims are just marketing hype, at this time.

And if getting the costs of good down so they can actually start to make money, means they have to throw concern about sustainability out the window, you can bet your right arm that this is what their investors will make them do.

In any case , all the marketing hype (like claims about first X, and calling their prototype dishes products, etc) is not in version 2, and not in the tweaking of version 2 down here, and what everybody in the RfC has opposed thus far. So no. Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, is that also in response to Tryptofish's version? Utsill I do think I agree with Jytdog on too heavy an emphasis on the company's own evaluation. (Especially because, in your version, it sounds like the company is praising what they produce as more sustainable ... when that seems to not be the case at the moment.) But I think the intent component of the first sentence is sufficient enough for me to be okay with Tryptofish's version. (I would also be okay with taking out "remake modern agriculture" in the first sentence, and adding "sustainable" before cultured meat).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) That said, I would accept something like: "The company aims to eventually produce cultured meat products that are affordable and sustainable; along with bringing down its costs, the company is conducting basic research to discover a way to avoid using fetal bovine serum as part of the cell culture process." That could be sourced to the gizmodo ref. It clarifies the challenges (and risks to investors and the hopeful) and has no hype. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Awesome - only thing I would nitpick there is the semi-awkward structure (we could probably kill "eventually"), but that would work for me. I like that it mentions the fetal bovine serum (FBS) issue, which as mentioned I do think should be included in any discussion of the aims/challenges the company has. I'm glad you liked the Gizmodo link - I did think that was one of the best ones. (The Chemistry World link that I linked above along with the Gizmodo link is also pretty good, if you're so inclined.) User:Tryptofish and User:Utsill is Jytdog's version alright with you all? If so, I think we have an agreement.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

My reaction is that's a bit awkward and wordy, and goes into too many topics. @Jytdog: could you, instead, go along with what I said above: in paragraph 2, change and to manufacture the meat products in to and to manufacture sustainable meat products in. (Change "the" → "sustainable".)? It's a lot simpler than what you just suggested. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Even though I do think FBS is worth mentioning (because almost every story that we cite that isn't a straight up "look a video!" story talked about FBS: Wall Street Journal, Common Reader, Gizmodo, Vice, Chemistry World all mention it in connection to Memphis Meats) ... I would softly prefer Tryptofish's version. It's a little smoother. That said, I would be okay with either.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

if we are going to talk about the goal of sustainability then we need to identify their key hurdles to meeting the goal (like we do on cost) and FBS is probably high on the list of challenges (along with the environmental costs of all the high tech stuff they need - while cows are inefficient engines for turning sunlight into food, the goods in that production chain are low tech commodities - not the high tech stuff required for this) Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (strike that bit to make sure it is off the table Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC))

You are overthinking this. We can blue-link sustainability, but there is no need to build a Rube Goldberg machine over all the other stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I had trimmed the stuff above about other costs-of-goods factors as that is too much detail and i proposed no content about that, but that got lost. Sorry about that bit. What i actually proposed content on, is biotech business 101 stuff - their value proposition and their challenges to realizing it. Jytdog (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Let's step back a bit. I think you made the discussion more complicated than it needs to be. I'd rather keep working with the version above. I really don't think this page is the place for a lesson on biotech business 101. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure we can step back to the version above. But this is an article about an early stage biotech company; there is a long road between aims and reality and we need to mind that gap -- just like we wouldn't hype the safety of a drug candidate that cleared a Phase I trial, we shouldn't downplay the risk that this company's products will never be affordable or sustainable. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good. My intention is to minimize any implication about future success or failure. To be clear, I'm talking about a sentence in the second paragraph above: The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. What I suggested was simply to change "and to manufacture the meat products" to "and to manufacture sustainable meat products". Just changing the word "the", and it's about their stated plans, not making any predictions in Wikipedia's voice. Alternatively, we could change "plans to produce various meat products" to either "plans to produce sustainable meat products" or "plans to produce various sustainable meat products". Any of those ways would be very simple. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

To some degree, I don't think it's our job to speculate on that risk, and I think forcing it is leading to some of the awkwardness (a la "aims to eventually"). THAT said, I completely agree we shouldn't imply that the company is on the verge of success (or make any normative evaluation of the company). Perhaps this is two separate issues. Issue 1: Tryptofish, would you potentially be okay putting "sustainable" in the first sentence in lieu of "remake modern agriculture"? ("Remake modern agriculture," even when quoted, sounds like a bit much to me. So ...

"Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat."

If you're set on your version I'm okay with that as well. As to Issue 2: FBS, I do think it's worth mentioning (again, so many articles bring this up), but last time I brought this up I know a majority said we should pass.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I could go with that too. I edit-conflicted with you, and suggested some other options as well. I'm OK with any of these. And I think we really need to leave out the stuff about serum. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'm good with all of those! And if you are certain on the serum I'll certainly yield there.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Good! Utsill has already said OK to it. So, Jytdog: you might as well pick one of the above choices, if there is one that works for you, and then maybe (?!) we will actually have a consensus. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Am willing to include the sustainability thing as an aim but only with context (i.e. the FSB stuff). Trypto I don't understand your opposition to mentioning FSB, really. Above you said it is too complicated for a general reader, but that is what the 2 wikilinks are for in the version i proposed - fetal bovine serum and cell culture). Am unwilling to communicate the hype (which every other company in the cultured meat industry does as well) without entree to the challenges. Jytdog (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what "hype" is. Can you explain what makes for hype in what we are actually discussing here? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure just read what Utsill has been saying. All the fervor - the hope and hype - is "revolutionizing" our current unsustainable meat production with sustainable cultured meat. It is the very heart of the hype. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

But that is no longer what we are discussing. How many times do I have to repeat myself? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ouch. Maybe this will help - for early stage drug companies, we don't say that their aim is "to discover safe and effective drugs to treat cancer, a disease that kills (big number) people every year". We just say their aim is "to discover drugs that treat cancer" We don't get into the details of the discovery/development process in every one of those articles either, or even about say how terrible cancer is that it needs a treatment. We rely on the WLs. Here the company "aims to create cultured meat." Why should anybody care and why is it hard? They can read cultured meat to find out just like they can go read cancer, drug discovery, and drug development. (also I think we have all agreed to remove the "revolutionize X" from the first sentence.... we somehow all missed that up to now) Jytdog (talk) 23:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Do you realize that everyone here except you has agreed to change the first sentence to "Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat."? And that's all that I have been asking you about? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was making it explicit that we were taking out the "revolution" bit. The issue is "sustainable". You are acting uncharacteristically here . Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

.... hahhaha I've been suggesting changing the first sentence for an hour now! Must be blind to my posts--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have read everything you have written. Please see my note above. Jytdog (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Let's ratchet it down just a little. Why don't we change the first sentence - frankly saying they aim to produce sustainable cultured meat is LESS promotional than saying they aim to "remake modern agriculture." I must say I am surprised that fetal bovine serum has now become a hot issue (previously it appeared I was the only one who thought it should be included!), but we can decide to change the first sentence without having a discussion on FBS. Jytdog, I like your version; I tried toning it down just a hair.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

version survey

Option 1

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The production cost of the in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and the production cost of the cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it planned to reduce costs by scaling production and finding a replacement for fetal bovine serum, an expensive growth medium for the cell culture, anticipating a commercial release of its products by 2021.

References

Alternatively we could just change the first sentence and forget about the FBS. Sorry that was my initial proposal until there seemed to be an impasse over FBS ... and I just got into an edit conflict where it appears Jytdog is no longer attached to FBS. So yeah, we could do that.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Option 2

Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to grow sustainable cultured meat. The company was founded by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota.

The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a cultured meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of cultured chicken and duck dishes.

The production cost of the in-vitro beef was $18,000 per pound, and the production cost of the cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company said it anticipated cost reductions and commercial release of its products by 2021.

References

Preferences

Fine with me. I am more than ready to be done here. Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (context changed after I wrote this Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC))

Apologies for the late context change! I realized I should have listed both rather than just list one and describe the other.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am okay with either, but I softly prefer option 1. @Jytdog: @Tryptofish: Sorry I set this up so you guys could choose one or the other, and then I ran into a million edit conflicts (So Jytdog I set up Option 1 / Option 2 after you wrote that).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• This was done all wrong, and I keep getting edit conflicts every time I try to fix it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Extended content

Version Memphis Meats is a food technology company headquartered in San Francisco aiming to replace meat produced from animals with cultured meat. The company was founded in 2015 by three scientists: Uma Valeti (CEO), Nicholas Genovese (CSO), and Will Clem. Valeti is a cardiologist and medical professor at the University of Minnesota. The company plans to produce various meat products using biotechnology to induce stem cells to differentiate into muscle tissue and to manufacture the meat products in bioreactors. In February 2016 Memphis Meats published a video of a prototype meatball, and in March 2017 the company published a video of prototype chicken and duck dishes. At the time the videos were released, the production cost of its cultured beef was $18,000 per pound and of its cultured poultry was $9,000 per pound. The company aims to eventually produce cultured meat products that are affordable and sustainable; along with bringing down its costs, the company is conducting basic research to discover a way to avoid using fetal bovine serum as part of the cell culture process. In 2017, the company projected that it would start selling products in 2021. References -There you go. Added some more tweaks per RELTIME. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC) (withdrawn Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)) Meh. Please see my question to you above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2017 (UTC) if we are going to talk about the goal of sustainability then we need to identify their key hurdles to meeting the goal (like we do on cost) and FBS is probably high on the list of challenges. The clunky sentence pairs their two main goals with their challenges to meeting those goals. I would be OK leaving the sentence out and not mentioning sustainability at all. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Master Discussion Topics

Discussion supplanted by conversation above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Since very few people are biting on the above vote, I'm making this so that we can actually discuss these issues in a way consistent with WP:Consensus. First off, relevant policies that people have brought up: Wikipedia is not a newspaper Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article WP:Undue weight WP:TMI WP:NOTCRYSTAL Category 1: How should we address the cultured products? Should we mention how those products were announced (via video)? First off: the video was certainly a PR move, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not worth including. Lots of decisions, down to product names, are PR based, yet we don't called the iPod page "Music Player Made By That Computer Company." Wikipedia is not paper, and I think WP:NOTNEWS has been thoroughly misused on this talk page (to me, this very obviously doesn't qualify as routine reporting on an announcement: there's a difference between this company getting press for something central to its existence and Apple releasing a stock report), though at the same time, I do agree that we might be broaching WP:TMI. I very very softly lean towards mentioning that the company announced the cultured meats with videos, but I certainly lean against linking to the videos or emphasizing this in any special way.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Should we mention the specific products or generalize them (i.e. "chicken tenders" or "chicken"? I would lean towards specific products. Specificity here doesn't pull the blinds over readers' eyes ... it gives them more accurate information. There's no real reason to prefer "chicken" over "chicken tenders." Chicken tenders is how reliable sources reported it, and it's more specific.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Anything Else on the Products? Category 2: What should we detail about production? Should we mention the company's cost / plans for scaling production? Both User:Jytdog's version and User:Utsill's version mention costs and plans for scaling production. I actually would have said we shouldn't mention thep lans, but, having searched, policy would have contradicted me here: WP:Crystal does say "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." The only question, then, is whether we should mention the cost of the poultry products ($21,000) in addition to the cost of the meatball ($18,000).--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Should we mention the claims about used:produced calorie ratios? I do not think such information should be used, and neither User:Jytdog nor User:Utsill mentioned it in their ideal versions.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Anything Else? Everything above almost perfectly misrepresents almost everything I have written here. I won't be responding here beyond this. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC) Wow everything - even when I said that you didn't include a used:produced calorie ratios in your summary? That's amazing! Did you hide it in a comment? You'll have to show me sometime. In the meantime, thanks for keeping an open minded and making sure that Wikipedia doesn't turn into a battleground. I should point out that everything above here is my opinion on the various issues, not yours, so maybe that contributed to your confusion; I guess you thought I was writing from your perspective.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC) "almost". Used twice. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC) So just to clarify: me writing my own opinions ... only almost misrepresents your opinions? That's actually quite remarkable - see? We're on our way to consensus already.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 04:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

forward-looking statements

The first version of the article especially, contain mostly statements of the nature of "the company expects to" "the company will" , the company plans..." All of this is the pure opinion of those with the most direct possible conflict of interest, and none of them can be taken as other than their hopes or perhaps fantasies. Even were this a promotional advertisement aimed at investors, all such sentences would need to be qualified with the required legal phrase and it's multi-sentence disclaimer I used as my section heading.

What can be said, is that" according to the company, it hopes to..." , or intends to ... . Anything they may say about the cost of scaling up production is their own extrapolation, or more exactly, what they would like to convince the reader is their own extrapolation. According to good sources, the WSJ and Fortune, "Memphis Meats wants to sell its meat commercially by 2021" Until then, even in their imagination, they will not have actually produced any commercial product. Nor have they actually demonstrated "chicken tenders" or "duck a l'orange"--chicken tenders and duck a l'orange are preparations of meat produced by butchering an animal. They have produced material from cultured chicken (or duck) cells that can be made to give the appearance & sensation of these dishes. What the FDA will eventually allow them to call it is altogether speculative. Meanwhile, I suppose our article could say "which they call ...".

Their videos are of course advertisements, but they have been referred to in good sources. They are not usable external links, but they can be mentioned in the article. My version might be a little different from Jytdog's, but it would be pretty close to it. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we replicate company predictions without qualifying them as such, which seems to be the position you're arguing against. If you think the qualification suggested above is insufficient, I'm not seeing that distinction in your comment, e.g. which wording do you oppose? And which wording do you support as qualification?

I think the point about whether the products actually are "chicken tenders" and "duck a l'orange" you're making is WP:Original Research. The RS's refer to the products with these terms, and to deviate from that would be OR. Utsill (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

We are allowed to (required to, actually) paraphrase what the sources say without falling afoul of WP:OR. - MrOllie (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

I disagree that this is paraphrasing. To clarify, I believe that you're claiming that they are not actually "chicken tenders" and "duck a l'orange," while the RS's say they are. Utsill (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If someone wrote 'They are not really chicken tenders', that would be OR. That's not happening here - we are exercising editorial judgement about the wording, which we are definitely allowed to do. We are under no requirement to follow the wording of a source exactly, especially if there is decent reason to think the source's wording is off (see, for example, nearly every press article summarizing a scientific paper ever written). - MrOllie (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

That's the assessment I disagree with. I don't think it's acceptable editorial judgment to change the wording like that. I don't think there's a decent reason to think the source's wording is off. Utsill (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It may well be, there is a specific USDA definition for a 'Chicken tender' (it must be a strip of 100% chicken breast) that they probably won't meet. Should've called it a 'Chicken finger', that has no specific definition that I know of. We won't really know until they submit for labeling, but there is no pressing reason to be over specific in the mean time. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit is a pretty bad case of WP:PROMO. Firstly, not every single event is noteworthy enough for a mentioning. Secondly mentioning it in Wikipedia's voice is pretty much a misrepresentation. The source for this information is this Yahoo article which is essentially a redressed press release without any independent verification. I don't see any consensus to add this back, so I would appreciate if this is not added back. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The entire discussion above is about this. (And there are many more sources than that.) The reason the page was locked originally was to prevent edit warring while a consensus was reached.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 05:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I have been going through the discussion and the sources gradually (though it is overwhelming), but as of now, my view is similar to what DGG says above. The content published in WSJ is claims by the company. Fortune is actually referring to WSJ article. Ultimately, none of them have verified the scientific claims. We also consider how intellectually independent the sources are of one another. If I go by the weight of coverage, I honestly don't see enough to include it here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Listen, by all means, engage in the discussion above, but you're usurpation of the discussion and unilateral action is why the page is protected again. Your thoughts are interesting (though I may disagree with them ... this intellectual independence seems like a rather abstract concept that isn't grounded in WP policy ... unless you mean when there's a direct reliance of one source on another), so please do add them to the above ("Current version" is where the discussion is currently, the link will take you up there)--137.54.8.212 (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you same as "216.12.10.118". Anyway, I am commenting above, but the discussion above seems to be slightly different. As for "intellectually independent", we use that to find the WP:WEIGHT. Multiple sources basing their reports on one source (without independently fact checking) is not useful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah so the latter - well as you can see from the ton of sources above, it's certainly not the case that they're all based on the Wall Street Journal article.--216.12.10.118 (talk) 19:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Full protection...

I have locked the page again; you're on a good way, but I think discussion needs more time. Lectonar (talk) 08:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)