Jump to content

Talk:Pink slime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.15.236.75 (talk) at 21:31, 2 April 2017 (→Its time to move it). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articlePink slime has been listed as one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 13, 2012Good article nomineeListed
July 29, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 13, 2012Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 16, 2012Good article reassessmentNot listed
Current status: Good article

Its time to move it

Yes i know this was tried in the past (during the "scandal") but it is time to move this article back to Lean finely textured beef OR Finely textured beef trimmings since the very first words in the article are "is a pejorative for". I understand that there is a "common name" rule, but there is also a rule against pejorative naming of articles. Since the scandal and news coverage is long over, can we please take the high road here and move this article to a more industry accurate name? Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No -- "common name" exists for a reason, and here it's a question of what readers are most likely to search for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i think that readers are most likely to search for the ingredient listed on the label. This article was hastily moved to "Pink Slime" during a time when the pejorative was popular in the news. It was a short sighted move that was defended by a minority of very zealous editors. Since that time labeling standards have begun to emerge http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/02/cargill-rolls-out-labels-for-some-finely-textured-beef-products/#.VWSgDflVjYE http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/crs/R42473.pdf and industry names will continue to be the common name, not the pejorative. Δρ∈rs∈ghiη (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nomoskedasticity that the common name should still be used as that is what people are most likely going to be searching for. --Jasenlee (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thats what redirects are for 96.244.12.80 (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pink slime is still what people search for, and what people still call it. Pink slime has been viewed 27261 times in the last 90 days. Lean finely textured beef has been viewed 145 times in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 05:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Aperseghin, the term "pink slime" is not used by the food industry, and it makes the article look very amateur. The article's title should be lean finely textured beef with alternative and/or common names quoted after. Just as in articles about animals or plants we see the scientific name before the popular name. If you guys are worried by what people are searching for, just redirect the searches to this page, no big deal. --Bernardo.fm (talk) 01:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC) This template must be substituted.[reply]

Yes, please change the title of this article. As it is agreed to be a pejorative term, it has an inherent bias, and this should be absent from wikipedia. When I saw the link on google after searching "pink slime" I honestly thought it was a link to uncyclopedia or some other spoof site at first. If you are so concerned about the majority of people searching "pink slime", then set up a redirect. Don't make patently specious excuses. The page for "cranefly" is not called "daddy long-legs" despite the fact that most all people I know call it that. Fmc47 (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: move the article and have "pink slime" redirect. Calling LFTB by its slang term only is a disgrace to wikipedia and discredits the encyclopedia. The argument that "pink slime" is the common term is arbitrary. According to who? By what research or scientific study is that claim made? A precedence has been set countless times that wikipedia uses the proper name for something and has it's slang term redirect, regardless how popular the slang term may be. See: Whore (prostitution), Cock (penis) , Buck (US dollar), pot (cannabis), poop (feces), etc.. When was the last time you heard someone refer to a fart as flatulence? The popular term fart redirects to flatulence on Wikipedia. Further more, the term "pink slime" was coined by a person to describe LFTB, and that in a news story taking an unfavorable opinion of the product. The use of the word grew from further media reports from that report. It was never industry standard, and the public use of the term is merely referencing the original media opinion. The product is 100% beef, citric acid or ammonia only used as a method to keep the product from being contaminated. The very term pink slime does not even accurately describe the end product, which more resembles sausage stuffings than anything else. The effort to keep this article as it's pejorative name is clearly political and does not keep with Wikipedia standards nor other encyclopedias standards.

Trollish username and 60 odd edits over the space of six years. Whose sockpuppet are you? 184.15.236.75 (talk) 21:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading picture

What is the point of having a picture of "pink slime"-free ground beef as an illustration? It can only create confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.197.136.239 (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I moved the image, which was in the lead, further down in the article. It's just an example of ground beef, and the caption now more clearly states that the product does not contain the additive. North America1000 13:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Pink slime. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pink slime/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will review this. Adding all my comments shortly. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 05:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • In my opinion all facts in the lead should typically be mentioned in the main text as well, and the citations should go there.
  • This topic has been quite controversial, so for this particular article, it's likely best to also have inline citations to reliable sources right there in the lead. Removing them may cause confusion for readers, or a contestation of the statements in the lead per a lack of sources verifying content. North America1000 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link filler
I mean can "filler" be linked? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Won't work at this time in the article. The closest link is an article about a similar topic, but for animal food, at Filler (animal food). North America1000 13:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are trimmings?
  • the largest U.S. producer I think it would be helpful to add "of beef" here, just for clarity. Optional.
  • I think the article in general appears listy and choppy due to the numerous short paragraphs. You may disagree, but I feel we should combine paragraphs to make it look more interesting. I liked the presentation at Big King.
Thank you. Some consolidation would help in "Early use" and "Market response". Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the Early use section is best left as-is, because it clearly demonstrates the chronology of the topic. Combining information here could have a negative effect of diluting the information and creating a minor form of synthesis. I have consolidated some information in the Market response section. North America1000 13:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • I think the apt name for this section would be "Manufacturing (or Production) and contents".
 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain trimmings, beef, roller press freezer, cell wall, additive, lean ground beef, cartilage
  • I think "trimmings" is self explanatory per content further up in the article, where Advanced meat recovery is linked under the moniker "beef trimmings". Beef seems to be too common of a term to need linking. I have expanded content describing the roller press freezer (diff). Linked cell wall. I linked additive, but further up in the article, in a section after the lead. I provided further clarification for lean beef in the section, which preceeds "lean ground beef". Linked cartilage. North America1000 11:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flash freezing is linked again as flash frozen
  • Cattle looks too common to be linked
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BPI and Cargill should be mentioned by their full names and linked at first mention in the main text
  • removing the melted fat by centrifugal force Better say centrifuge directly lest the reader should be left wondering how this happens.

Early use

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:08, 23 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • use of the basic technology What does "basic technology" mean?
  • USDA FSIS microbiologists You have already mentioned the association between them, so we could simply say FSIS here.
  • USDA FSIS microbiologists Carl Custer and Gerald Zirnstein... This line looks very long, can it be split?
  • process's effectiveness I think "the effectiveness of the disinfection process" looks better.
  • occasions in which process adjustments Should "in" not be "on"?
  • , aired on April 12, 2011, To avoid so many commas can we say aired on 12 April 2011 without commas?
  • Oliver has stated I think it should be simply "stated".
  • Link (or explain) connective tissue, pathogenic, anhydrous, The New York Times

ABC News report

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • Link ABC News, ammonium hydroxide, ware (Market response)
Oh, sorry.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the use of ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals --> ammonium hydroxide is only one of several chemicals
  • LFTB was referred to as We have discussed this naming of the product nowhere in the main text.
 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 18:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • USDA considered it as meat. Does meat need a link? You do not link it in the lead or at the first mention in the main text.
That is what I mean. Why is it linked in this line? Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Whoops, missed that. Removed the link (diff). North America1000 17:31, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One newspaper reported Which one?
  • On March 25, 2012, "DMY" dates are typically used. Check throughout the article.
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 72 customers, many over the course of one weekend and production decreased --> 72 customers and many over the course of one weekend; production decreased
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is nadir?
  • About 80% of sales  % --> percent as written elsewhere
  • Plainview, Texas, links?
 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many grocery stores and supermarkets Are links needed?
 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • including the nation's three largest chains Their names? Largest as of when?
  • The article does not state the names of the grocery chains, so cannot add this. I have copy edited the article to further clarify: "including the nation's three largest chains, announced in March 2012 that ..." North America1000 11:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:16, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplink: United States Department of Agriculture (Market response)
  • forty-seven of fifty states Digits please.
  • Nebraska, and Iowa links?
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:06, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is bullish Link for bullish?
I have seen links in quotes in many other articles. It is in fact good to link in this case. If this is no absolute rule we can link bullish. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
checkY All right, linked bullish, which redirects to Market sentiment. May provide clarity for readers who may be unfamiliar with the term. North America1000 13:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "U.S. Government response" can be better renamed as "Government response", this includes responses by different States and not just the national government's.
  • Link for Safeway? Optional
  • USDA commodity dollars What does this mean?
 Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:17, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does school meal need a link?
  • the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated This is another issue. Just say USDA every time once you have introduced it
  •  Done The full name "United States Department of Agriculture" is now only in the lead and first paragraph. I have retained the full name in the image caption to promote clarity in the caption. North America1000 02:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • beginning in fall 2012 --> beginning in the fall of 2012
Alright  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) indicated, beginning in fall 2012 it would give school districts I think we need to fix some commas here.
  • What is CBS?
  • BPI claimed $1.2 billion in damages as a result of the ABC reports Is this not a repetition of what is stated earlier in the para?

Current use

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 03:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • A general question. How do you differentiate between "Early" and "Current"? Is three years ago still "current"?
Alright, as you wish.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2013, LFTB was in an estimated 5% of beef, according to industry officials. Needs clarity. What industry? Which beef?
  • I think "%" should be "percent" as you say elsewhere in the article.
Alright, as you wish.  Resolved Sainsf <^>Feel at home 17:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regulation

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • Duplink: disinfection
  • Can you explain Baader process? It is a redlink.

Legislation

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content
  • for its elimination Say "pink slime" when you begin a section, not "it"

Sources

 Done Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Extended content

Don't delete refs. before going through the list, it can distort the ref. nos. mentioned here.

  • Can all the date formats be converted to DD-MM-YYYY ?
Alright, but ref. 2 is in a different format. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
checkY I have updated the source. North America1000 13:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper formatting needed in refs. 3, 10
  • Proper formatting needed in refs. 42, 47, 58, 78, 90
  • Refs. 2, 4, 20, 24, 28, 35, 38, 40, 61, 64, 83, 89, 94, 95, 96, 100, 103 seem to be deadlinks
  • I am not sure if refs. 7, 9, 10, 37, 49 are reliable.
Thanks a lot for elaborating on this. I agree with your points. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics for agency in ref. 8. Please check for the other sources. You can also link the sources like USA Today
  • Ref. 25: Caps for e in "editorial"
  • I could not access refs. 15, 16
Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 19 seems to be going elsewhere.
Sorry, seems I had some connection trouble. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved. It appears you are able to access the source at this time. North America1000 13:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref. 68-Reuters, not reuters.com. Similarly in ref. 85
  • Lower case in ref. 98
  • Refs. 20, 46, 56, 62, 63, 70, 84 seem to be going elsewhere.
I am not sure if "dead link" templates should stay in an article. Could we just omit the URLs? And the Yahoo sources are still redirecting to the Yahoo homepage for me. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 16:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links can often be accessed using internet archive services, such as the Internet Archive Wayback Machine. As such, I feel the dead links are best left in place. Also, dead links occasionally become live again. North America1000 16:17, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not check refs. 78, 102 and 104.

@Northamerica1000: This has been an interesting review, thanks for all your patience and cooperation. And also for adding the "Extended content" boxes, it is easier to navigate here! Alright; I have detected no copyvio, the sources look good, the article is very well-written and illustrated as was possible. In my opinion this meets the GA criteria. I am happy to promote this. Cheers! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 11:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sainsf: It's been a pleasure collaborating with you on this, and I look forward to the prospect of potential continued collaboration with you in the future. North America1000 11:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Food additive or industrial filler?

Is the so called 'pink slime' a food additive or an industrial filler?---Now wiki (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The product has nutritional value, so it is a "food." Collect (talk) 21:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.---Now wiki (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pink_slime&oldid=773511256"