Talk:Pink slime/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pulverized cow anus

It should be noted people are now calling this filth what it is.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Do you intend to add "pulverized cow anus" to the article? If not, you're using this talk page as a forum. SÆdon^talk 09:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Many blogs are now using this term and I believe it should be added to the article, another editor disputed this and called my cited addition vandalism. Therefore I bring this matter to the attention of this talk page.LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The term is neither accurate nor NPOV; it is used exclusively by people with an agenda. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I think if pink slime is made with contaminated meat including that which is exposed to fecal matter, and is from cows, and is turned into a puree, pulverized, cow, and anus all come to mind. Furthermore after reading the blogs, I beg to differ, the blogs show an analysis of pink slime comparable to the news articles on pink slime. I see no agenda there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

You may think its made a certain way and since blogs are nothing more then other people personal views by nature your reasoning and education level on the subject seems limited to the very people against "Pink Slime"67.212.109.85 (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not reliable sources, and you should know that full well. Ravenswing 01:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Propose: Redirect to Advanced meat recovery

"Pink Slime" and "Advanced meat recovery" are one and the same. There is no evidence that "Pink slime" is the common name (as opposed to common slang). "Pink slime" is blatant NPOV. NPOV is a pillar of Wikipedia. Even if "Pink slime" were the common name (thus falling under the common name policy), Wikipedia's NPOV pillar trumps ordinary policy. The history of the name "Pink slime" indicates it is obviously part of a POV campaign, so there is no doubt here that the name fails our NPOV tests. Thus, we should redirect this article to AMR and add a section to that article outlining this new controversy. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Rklawton (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support There are MANY other articles on the mechanical separation of meat that this information fits better. The Pink Slime Controversy may warrant an article but purely to inform people that it happened, why it happened and what the social and media issues were. Aperseghin (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The renaming and trashing of this product is a significant event. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - are there reliable sources that specifically cover the "renaming" and "trashing"? We can't SYNTH our own from articles that actually do the trashing. Note, too, that this article isn't about the campaign to denigrate the product, it's primarily about the product. Lastly, a renaming/trashing article would need an article name that indicates the subject is the campaign. "Pink slime" alone doesn't do it. Maybe "Pink slime product attack" or something like that. Rklawton (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, although I observed the event, which seemed to originate on ABC News, although it originated in a chance comment by the whistleblower, coverage by Wikipedia depends on coverage in reliable sources. I would look in the public relations press for that; although, the NYT's article might serve to some extent. User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support Advanced meat recovery is a much older article, has a more robust history of usage according to google, is descriptive, not jargon, not colloquial and not neologic. More importantly, pink slime does not deserve its own article. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I would also support moving this article into Mechanically separated meat. I would also like to add that greater than 50% of the searching I am doing has "pink slime" in quotes in the article. It seems that the general public is well-aware of the colloquial nature of the term, and so should Wikipedia. Rip-Saw (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The premise of this proposal is erroneous. In the Products section of Advanced meat recovery six different products are named, one of them, Lean Finely Textured Beef, being identical to the present subject. Thus, Pink slime is one of at least six different products stemming from advanced meat recovery processes. Also, nominator clearly acts with a (not so) hidden agenda, attempting to get rid of the name of the present article, which is fine, but don't pretend this nomination isn't simply about that, so keep the renaming discussion where it belongs in a previous section on this talk page! __meco (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Note This edit of Advanced meat recovery removes the section and information I'm referring to above, so that puts my argument in limbo. __meco (talk) 06:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. They are not one and the same. Advanced meat recovery is a process that may result in six distinct products, one of which is pink slime/LFTB/BLBT. There is enough sourced content here to warrant a standalone article. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose This subject may be related to Advanced meat recovery, but they are clearly not the same. BudgetBurning (talk) 08:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)— BudgetBurning (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Conditional support Since, as Gobōnobo points out, pink slime is one of six distinct products, if all six could be covered in sections of advanced meat recovery without making the article too large, then I would support merging there. And if, following that, there's sufficient content (referenced from reliable sources etc.) to split off from that to a separate article on the "pink slime controversy" in the press, then I'd support that too. 09:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose pink slime is the only lingua franca term for this product, all the three word and four word terms are deceptive corporate euphemisms for this product and the companies themselves are probably pushing for a name change here on wikipedia or their stockholders and supporters and that is unconscionable. Finely textured lean beef is a sentence and it is not pink slime, fecal mattered covered rectal and disgestive tissues in addition to centerfuge separted spinal cord protein bits sanitized with poison ammonia hydroxide gas is pink slime.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- the current title is what is used overwhelmingly in the sources that discuss this product. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose any redirect, for the record the current title brings WP into disrepute. Mtking ^(edits) 01:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fred and others, who have said it all. Ravenswing 03:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Please be aware that up until recently the Advanced meat recovery article contained an error where it suggested that LFTB was a product produced by AMR. This is incorrect. AMR is process where meat is mechanically separated from bone. It is in effect a sort of trimming process. LFTB is, in comparison, a rendering process (not a cutting or trimming process). The two are distinctly separate and the USDA treats AMR and LFTB as completely separate classes of products. - Hoplon (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose redirect. The product under discussion here has become such a hot topic that it would overwhelm the Advanced meat recovery article and would have to be spun off in any case. --MelanieN (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – Advanced meat recovery involves obtaining skeletal meat from several different animals without the controversial use of ammonia gas, whereas pink slime is specifically a food-based additive that is in part derived from using ammonia hydroxide gas, which chemically changes to ammonium hydroxide when it comes in contact with moisture in the meat. (Some processors use citric acid instead of ammonia gas.) The resulting product, pink slime, is then added to ground beef as a filler. Also, this article's title is specific to how numerous reliable sources refer to the topic, as "pink slime." Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this AMR product clearly has enough notability to stand on its own. Merging the content of this article into AMR would be silly; compare the article lengths. The status quo, whereby each article includes the other in its "See also" section, is appropriate. --BDD (talk) 18:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

Is a non-negotiable policy of Wikipedia. Many edits seem to disregard this requirement. Sigh. Collect (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not just a policy. It's a Pillar. I think it's time for admins to start swinging the ax. Rklawton (talk) 13:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

LLThe sooner the better! Collect (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I for one am not disregarding anything, I have just finished copyediting the article with some other editors constantly reverting anything I add whatsoever blindly without any discussion and this includes non-controversial well cited content, and content removal is even worse than any POV problems actual or imaginary.LuciferWildCat (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

The first problem is the article's title. We've got sources that specifically say it's the name given by one side, and we have no sources that actually say it's the common name - just SYNTH attempting to "prove" it's the common name. And COMMONNAME doesn't apply to POV names anyway. As a result, there's no reason not to rename the article to something neutral - but such a move is being blocked by certain editors who either don't know the rules or aren't willing to follow them thereby preventing consensus. However, it is my contention that consensus isn't necessary to fix policy (Pillar) violations and that any editor attempting to revert could be blocked for disruption. Rklawton (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

This thread is about NPOV not the article's title, a title that has been agreed upon by consensus not by my personal convictions.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Look, if you're that eager to be desysopped, why not hand in your resignation and make it a good bit less nasty? It's appalling that an editor and admin of your experience just doesn't seem to get it: it's not that a consensus of editors don't understand your POV or know the rules, we just don't agree with you. The notion that you believe admins to be a superior class of people who can and should run self-righteous roughshod over all opposition is an ugly one, and the notion that you think it's okay to block editors who are on the side of consensus against your POV a disgusting one. As a wise man once said, is this the hill you want to die on? Ravenswing 02:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

If you dig yourself a grave by using terms such a "pulverized cow anus," a term which I could only find ONE blogger use, people are going to start undoing any work you put into the article that shines any negative light onto the topic. When all of your edits are POV and people keep reverting them, it's easy to think that those others must not be neutral; this is faulty logic on your part. If I was pro pink slime, I might insert terms like "delicious" or "nutritious lean beef trimmings." If you, however, continue to use well-sourced FACTS, which most of your edits do, people will take you seriously. Facts in an of themselves are always neutral, it is the wording of facts and people's agendas that are POV. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are no graves here just some editorial disagreements that will be worked out. I just wish certain editors would refrain from content removal of sourced content under the guise of "talk" when only they have commented on it. The responsibility falls on the editor to review what he is deleting to be based on analysis of the content not his opinion of the user nor his editors, even if they included pulverized cow anus, which I found to be used in several blogs. I keep editing not with facts but with verifiable reliable source statements, which is what wikipedia runs on. I have not chosen to focus on just the negative nor the positive. In fact that sort of polar thinking isn't very helpful anyways as it is arbitrary. Is it really a negative that the production has been suspended, is it really a negative that there is ammonia used in the product? As an editor I don't care, but I want the reader who does care to be able to decide that for herself.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I gave you a news link up above that stated it was the common name. Silverseren^C 18:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Here is another "They don't want to eat "lean finely textured beef." That's the meat industry term for a ground beef additive more commonly known as "pink slime."".LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is one that states the opposite "Kelly: Beef flap shows power of words"67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, It actually states, Let alone that it's unfair. The loaded phrase, nevertheless, is memorable, powerful, easily repeatable and suddenly part of the national lexicon. So your defense is that it has entered the national lexicon.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

and it ends with "Slimy mischaracterizations, meanwhile, can be devastating. In extremely negative language, a safe product known as lean finely textured beef got framed — and mislabeled — in a very bad way." which I believe is the point of the article67.212.109.85 (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So, we are back to this: Pink slime is clearly pejorative and LFTB is an opaque industry label. Which do you prefer? CarsonsDad (talk) 09:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

300 billion "safe" meals

Does anyone have a reliable source for that statement that's not from the lion's mouth?LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Likely understated - if McDonald's and BK and Taco Bell and Wal-Mart and all of the supermarket chains listed and school lunch programs each used it on a regular basis, I suspect that far more than 300 billion "meals" have contained the product. 300 billion is likely a very conservative figure. [1] [2] [3] (7 million pounds this spring in school lunches = more than 150 million school lunches alone this spring - 70% of all ground beef has product = untold billions of meals). The Today Show had a person state Americans alone eat over 40 billion hamburgers a year ... Taco Bell alone sells over 2 billion tacos per year. The 300 billion is very credible on its face. Collect (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"Credible" is not the point; this is original research and is no more citable than the press release from the company. The figure may well be accurate but without a Reliable Source we can't use it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added 2 additional references. Surely their purposes aren't as nefarious as the mass media's?Rip-Saw (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Which are those and is it still in the article? Honestly this user has only intermittently edited wikipedia about once a year for a couple years and has only recently emerged with only pro-pink slime edits and whitewashing of negative pink slime content, I think a check user would be in order to determine if this is a hunch or true. I will assume good faith but I would like to know for sure this is not a PR person for the beef lobby or BPI.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

"Address the edits and not the editor." Your post here is not in that spirit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 09:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

contaminated meat

So pink slime is made from small pieces of meat attached to really fatty and connective tissue and nerve tissue and bone pieces, but the fat is well that fat of it. It is heated in the centrifuge because that separates the fat. It is heated to 100 degrees in that centrifuge and that naturally will incubate every little bacterium until it is raging with disease, that is where the citric acid or ammonia come in. I think we need to have this fact included in the article. It's explained on beef products website and I am sure we can source the common sense that hot wet raw meat is a great incubator for bacteria. Personally I find the fact that it is heated and therefore the already highly bacteria infested meat to be more gross than the citric acid or ammonia part and in any case we should explain the process more thoroughly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

First off nerve tissue and bone pieces are not part of the trimmings used in the production process. Secondly how long does it stay at 100 degrees before being flash frozen. Is it a significant amount time to gestate any significant number pathogenic bacteria? Also why wasn't bacteria an issue for all the years BPI made LFTB before treating with ammonia?67.212.109.85 (talk) 22:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted this is a POV pushing single purpose IP involved in whitewashing the article with a clear conflict of interest and probably a company official.

This thread is not an argument. It is a discussion so users may collaborate on finding proper sourcing for the issue I have brought forth. Nerve tissue is in the product, nerve tissues are part of what connective tissues are. If you ate your product you would taste the mealy pieces of nerves in it. The meat scraps are heated and this incubates a huge amount of bacteria, if it didn't you wouldn't need to apply ammonia or citric acid. So obviously the length of time does not matter much. It sure sounds like bacteria has always been an issue, perhaps BPI hid it well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 00:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

You are injecting what you think is science into an area where not only is it improper for WP editors to assert expertise (which you do not appear to claim), but where such surmises are WP:OR ab initio. Collect (talk) 02:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

No I am communicating a desire to find proper sourcing and develop a passage that describes a paste that is made in centrifuges from contaminated meat byproducts as a "centrifuge meat paste" which is just a logical conclusion and is not scientific or unscientific.LuciferWildCat (talk) 04:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The real issue is no real regulation on bone and the process that is banned in so many nations including Canada is processing meat with ammonia. Despyria (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

spinal sections / mad cow / csm

I have read in some news articles that spinal sections are used to grab the meat from there and that it has been highly concerning as this is the part closest to spinal fluid, encephalis, and other mad cow disease containing matter. Can anyone find it or see it? Perhaps it's hidden in one of our existing links?LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, not the case here per USDA rules. CJDv is still a concern. Collect (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Legality in the UK and Canada

The lead says that it isn't legal in either the UK or Canada, but this doesn't appear to be stated in either of the sources associated with this sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's in the second source there (currently ref #6, Gothamist, "totally banned in Canada and UK"). We might want it better substantiated, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We can quote the Jamie Oliver's Food Revoultion episode as well, since he reported the same fact there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

He is a reliable source on legality of importation of foods? For a long time, chicken from the US was "illegal" in the EU - should we have had that in the "chicken" article? <g>. And all US beef was "illegal" in the EU for many years. Without a sound source as to "legality" and reasoning therefor, it seems to hit UNDUE at the least. Collect (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/4-3e.shtml It should be noted that they ban the use of processing the meat with ammonia not FTM persay. Despyria (talk) 07:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I note Canada speciafically allows FTM. I am unsure as to whether or not ammonia is an approved anti-microbial agent per "The optional use of antimicrobial agents, when used as pathogen reduction procedures for cutting of raw meat, must be included as part of the operator's control program." as "ammonia does not appear directly on the page cited. That is apparently entirely up to "Health Canada." Collect (talk) 09:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

illegal in UK

why was that removed, do we need additional sources? is it legal in other countries?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

We certainly need SOME source. The two references appended to that sentence said nothing about it being illegal in the UK, and the appeared to be wrong about it being illegal in Canada, so I deleted the sentence. (Turns out that the finely ground beef is allowed in Canada, but not if it has been treated with ammonia; good research by WolverineLawyer to find the reference for that.) If you have some evidence that it is illegal for human consumption in the UK or other countries, it can be added back, but a source is required. --MelanieN (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It had a source from Gothamist for both those.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

See [4] which shows the ban is not specific to "pink slime." Collect (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Email Response From US Ag

I'm not sure if it fits but I have an email response from the US Ag about the school lunches.

(email deleted because of notice in the email forbidding its reproduction)

Despyria (talk) 08:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, it appears you don't understand the last section. 62.107.210.41 (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I deleted the email, which should not have been reproduced. --MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Compostition?

What is the compostion of this stuff? WHY isn't comparative composition an integral part of the article? As I understand it, Pink Slime is up to 70% protein, but is this total weight or weight solids? (I am not a food scientist and don't understand their customary nomenclature.) Pink slime's protein contains 77% insoluble protein. Does that mean it is "non-nutritional" filler? If 77% of this is non-nutritional but technically qualifies as "protein" then the producers have 'gamed' the system. I suggest a comparison between chuck or round cuts, sausage and/or 'hot dogs', and ground beef with and without 15% pink slime added. Now, wouldn't that be useful? Why isn't ammonia used in Canada? Is methylimidazole a thermal product of ammonia and meat? Can anybody help? 71.31.149.105 (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources? References? Proof? We need verification for all of this.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Can we get a picture as this seems to be a very visual subject? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chockyegg (talk • contribs) 13:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

We still need a picture. A picture of ground beef does not do this justice. Are any of these acceptable for uploading to Wikipedia? https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=&q=pink%20slime&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=SqhoT9nGIqapsQKStvmOCQ&biw=1280&bih=856&sei=TKhoT_jrEcKg2gWdzpzxCA — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubtleGuest (talk • contribs) 15:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is a clear understanding of what image is meant by the term 'pink slime', it is visible in your search. The ground beef image is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chockyegg (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Excuse me, ground beef images are indeed relevant, if you think otherwise then you obviously have a bias against lean beef trimmings that most likely came from a highly biased, self-seeking abc news reporter in order to sell his or her story on lean beef trimmings to further his or her career at the cost of others. You're not going to find a picture of "pink slime" because there is no actual "Pink slime". All it is is lean beef taken from what was trimmed off with the fat, separated from the fat, then cleaned with ammonia. Post a picture of lean beef.

Ground beef is inaccurate, as pink slime cannot be sold on its own, and whatever best illustrates it in its pink sliminess along the production line or the frozen brick finished product would be much better as it is 100% pink slime, and not the ground beef that is 85% traditional beef with 15% pink slime filler.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe traditionally this type of meat by-product was referred to in the industry (and by its critics) as "cows' lips and assholes". I assume pictures of cow lips and cow anuses would aptly do in place of the finished brick-like "pink slime" product. 75.62.128.148 (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Potentially obvious compromise

For varying definitions of "obvious" and "compromise."

It's looking increasingly likely that the name of this article will remain "Pink slime," even as editors supportive of the name don't quite feel comfortable with it (I count myself in this category). But considering how excited people are getting, here and elsewhere, about the terminology involved, very little of the article itself addresses this aspect. Why not make a section--say, Name, Terminology, or maybe even Etymology--that lays out the various terms used to refer to this type of beef, and who uses which terms? If there's anything like a consensus on this topic, I think it could be expressed as:

• "Pink slime" is pejorative, but
• The alternatives are industry euphemisms, so
• "Pink slime" remains.

A terminology section could express this nuance without either presenting "pink slime" as uncontroversial or bowing before the preferences of the industry. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 17:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you find any Reliable Sources to cite in explaining these usages? Looks to me like it would be pretty much original research/synthesis, and that's the last thing we need in such a controversial article. (Your analysis is correct IMO, but it's still OR/synthesis unless some Independent Reliable Source says it.) Probably the talk page is the only place where the explanation, and argument, about the name can be expressed. --MelanieN (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources already cited in the article can offer some insight into the origins of the various terms and who uses what. We need not indulge in OR or synthesis. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable summary, except it's missing the rationale for why an "industry euphemism" is unacceptable as the title of the article. (I wonder what those who have called "lean finely textured beef" a "euphemism" would prefer the industry call their product; surely one wouldn't expect them to call it "pink slime"?) Powers ^T 19:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

An inudstry euphemism isn't unacceptable when its the only name and possibly the more common name, however this product already has a layterm that is outside of industry jargon and inside widespread usage, appearing frequently without quotations in the media and it has even been translated into "baba rosa" (rose colored drool) in the spanish press and other similar equivalents in german, chinese, russian. That makes it the clear choice.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not as clear as you think; "pink slime" almost always appears with scare quotes, marking it as a neologism (as well as the fact that most sources take the time to define the term whenever its used). Powers ^T 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The media usage of the term I've seen has been without scare quotes, FWIW. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

True but wikipedia doesn't name things what a company would like or not like just what is accurate, so that question presents a false dichotomy if it's meant to corner someone into deciding "we have to name the article LFTB because the company wouldn't be expected to call it that", if that's what you mean.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

So, we are back to this: Pink slime is clearly pejorative and LFTB is an opaque industry label. Which do you prefer? CarsonsDad (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason to include a section on the debate of using the name, since there is little debate about the name anywhere except this talkpage. This talkpage would make for poor encyclopedic content. Pink slime is the only appropriate name for this article. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Is political party relevant to this topic?

I note repeated reference to political party in this article. I question its relevance. I have refrained from editing as there appear to be more than enough editors already. DougRickman (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Donation to Romney

I deleted the sentence about the owner of BPI donating to Romney, which is completely irrelevant to this article. Otherwise the only reference I found to political parties was to identify the party of the various governors at their first mention, which is standard procedure. --MelanieN (talk) 15:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense as we are not news, unless he is talking about pink slime directly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I and another editor have restored the referenced sentence about political donations by the CEO of BPI, but I've removed mention of Romney because he was only one of many recipients, and has not commented on the current controversy as far as I can tell. Mention of political parties is relevant to the discussion, because members of both parties in Congress as well as local politicians have taken a public stand on the debate. Scopecreep (talk) 00:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree with User:Scopecreep directly above this comment: since politicians from the Democratic and Republican Parties have publicly commented regarding the topic, it's appropriate to include their views. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

(Note): My above comment was regarding the original title of this section, "Is political party relevant to this topic?", and not about the "Donation to Romney" matter per se or exclusively; the section "Donation to Romney" was added after I commented regarding the "Is political party relevant to this topic?" section. I've changed "Donation to Romney" to a subsection. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

MelanieN is correct. Mention of political affiliation is appropriate for elected politicians. Roth is not an elected politician; his political donations are not relevant to the History of his invention. CarsonsDad (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

We appear to have a small edit war going on, about whether the fact that the owner of the manufacturing company has donated money to Mitt Romney has anything to do with an article about this product. Let's solve it here. WolverineLawyer has added it back twice, on the basis that Politico reported on it. Scopecreep also added it back once. I have deleted it as irrelevant, and CarsonsDad deleted it twice. It is currently not in the article. Before it gets put back in, I need someone to explain to me WHY the owner of the company's political contributions have anything to do with an article about the company's product, if the recipient of the donations has not had any other connection to this story. Example of what IS relevant IMO: the fact that the company donated to one of the governors who is now touting the product. That is in the article, and it belongs there, because it may cast light on an aspect of the story, namely the promotion by the governor. Example of what is NOT relevant IMO: the fact that the company donated to a major political candidate who hasn't said Word One about this controversy. Absent a connection to the story, this is no more relevant than if the owner gave money to the American Red Cross. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW if someone wants to start an article about Eldon Roth, his political leanings might be appropriate there. But not here. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually CarsonsDad had deleted it three times by the time you'd posted that: [5], [6], [7], and then deleted it a fourth time a minute later, [8], in apparent breach of the Three-revert rule. As I said above, yes, Romney shouldn't be mentioned in the article as he hasn't made a public statement yet on pink slime. But the Politico reference doesn't only talk about Romney, it also talks about other Republican campaigns. Since every Republican mentioned in the article supports BPI's position in the debate, mention of Roth's donations is relevant in the article. So I'll add another, more neutral reference mentioning this, alongside the referenced mention of the contribution to Branstad. Please don't rush to delete it before discussing the deletion here. Thanks, Scopecreep (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, the context you have put it in, and the way you have phrased it, is OK with me. Thanks, good compromise. --MelanieN (talk) 14:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks. Scopecreep (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The campaign funding of those who took the tours is all that is relevant. Don't make this article about politics. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime is a neologism used by critics

"Pink slime" is a neologism invented by critics of the product and is therefore not NPOV. "Pink slime" is also almost always referred to using quotation marks, indicating that is is a nickname or neologism. Wiki-Taka (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It's actually widely used without the quotation marks, which in most cases are just used to add emphasis when they are used.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

It makes wikipedia look bad to have this as the thread title. Pink slime should redict to it's correct, rational, original name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.84 (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses common names, not scientific names, because it is for general use. For example: the article for dog is at dog, not "Canis lupus familiaris", the article for salt is at salt, not "sodium chloride", and the article for the Andromeda galaxy is at Andromeda galaxy, not "Messier Object 31". --86.167.141.239 (talk) 01:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no NPOV term that can be used. When you have 2 names, both of which are POV, you use the more common name. "Lean finely texture beef" is not NPOV, because it was likely invented strictly to combat "pink slime". Rip-Saw (talk) 23:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Politifact on Pink slime/LFTB

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/apr/10/gary-black/dont-call-it-pink-slime-georgia-official-says/ Maybe something in there could be useful for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"Pink Slime"

"Pink slime, also known as lean finely textured beef (LFTB)"

Yeah ok. Now how about:

"Timey-Wimey Stuff, also known as Einstein's General Theory of Relativity..."

Praetonia (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Country X, also known as the evil enemy... Please see WP:COMMONNAME. "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article." - "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.". We should probably use whatever the available reliable sources use. Von Restorff (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You've mixed them up: 'lean finely textured beef (LFTB)' is the technical name ("Country X"), 'Pink slime' is the political propaganda name ("the evil enemy"). Praetonia (talk) 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW - "thermally separated beef product" would seem to cover what it is even if no one uses that particular term. Collect (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; if the industry term is thought too favourable (can't see how "pink slime" could be more unfavourable!), a purely descriptive title would be better. Praetonia (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with you that a purely descriptive title would be better, it would not be policy. I certainly disagree with the WP:COMMONNAME policy on the grounds of it not being technical enough, but since it is policy, we should stick with it. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Commonly used by whom? A certain section of the media commonly refers to the US Tea Party as 'teabaggers', but that plainly wouldn't be an appropriate article title even if enough people used it that it became more common than the official name.

The WP:COMMONNAME itself states:

"Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:

Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later

Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious"

'Pink slime' would seem to be excluded by both criteria. Praetonia (talk) 09:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime is very likely to stick. And it's not at all obvious what "more encyclopedic" means in this instance; it surely does not mean industry euphemisms. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Come on, it's a political smear term propping up what looks to me like a very shaky scientific case (admittedly my degree is in physics, not biology, but this has snake oil written all over it). It is just precisely a "trendy slogan" and precise opposite of encyclopedic. Praetonia (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The press is not a political smear campaign they are the sources we use on every article for this project. It is not shaky evidence at all, the industry itself admits what it does from what and how it does it, they seem to dislike the popular term for their product and keep insisting it is safe, which as logic would provide means it probably isn't. It is not a slogan, it is the name of the article and it is a noun not a catchphrase so it is not a slogan. LuciferWildCat (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors ought not include what they "think" about a topic into any article. See WP:PIECE. Right now, the term "pink slime" is in sufficient usage that it makes a reasonable article title. The other stuff you seem to wish inserted is hitting a "strong POV implication" and ought not be here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that very clear explanation, Collect. We use the common name because it is the common name. People who try to push for an extremely negative alternative ("soylent pink") on the one hand, or an extremely innocuous alternative ("lean finely textured beef") on the other hand, are pushing POVs rather than following Wikipedia policy. --MelanieN (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am slightly perturbed about the implications of a decision like that. If "towelhead" were to come into common use, would we rename Muslim to that? If "teabagger" were to be in more common use than Tea Party Movement, would that be the name of the article? Pink slime is not an NPOV name choice, it's an inaccurate scare-term as much as any other -- it is as POV as a title can possibly be. Kiberon (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If Reliable Sources started using "towelhead" as a synonym for "Muslim," we would have far greater problems in our society that what to call the Wikipedia article. As for Teabagger - a relatively innocuous shorthand, and natural since the early Tea Party protesters often decorated themselves with teabags - it redirects to Tea bag (disambiguation) where it is defined as "a term for Tea Party Movement participants." As usual, argument by analogy is unhelpful. Neither case has any bearing on why we call this article by the name it is most commonly referred to in the media. --MelanieN (talk) 18:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think it's firmly established at this point that this article exists in its current form because of the political biases of people like "MelanieN". I'm done. Praetonia (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is just a ridiculous statement, Melanie has only had a moderating effect on this article and given both sides the benefit of the doubt, in fact I feel she has actually given too much credit to the pro pink slime side and that it is bias in favor of pink slime. There is nothing political about the consensus on pink slime being used here, watch the news, pink slime is the only term in widespread use, only those with a pro meat industry agenda use LFTB, or those citing it to them, if congressmen for example started calling it "thermal-centrifuge cattle paste" or TCCP which would be accurate then we would likely also mention it but it would have to knock the use of pink slime out of existence which is unlikely. You seem to have a problem with facts and that is incompatible with the goals of this encyclopedia. In fact I think you should be warned or blocked for making those accusations to Melanie and IMHO I highly question new single purpose accounts that vehemently support the Pro Pink Slime side of things and always suspect a high level of personal interest/conflict of interest involved.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Though you are quick to write off my argument, you did not actually address it. If towelhead became as common as Muslim, would that be the name of the article? I could not care less about your personal views on whether or not Muslims are towelheads, or the wider implications that would have on blah blah blah. That is completely beside the point. Kiberon (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is invalid and wont be addressed on your terms but per policy and you were given a great explanation why. You might be surprised to know we have an article on the Nigga phenomenon and also the slur Wetback. If towelhead did become the common term for arab people we probably would not change the name of the article because over the course of history they were called arabs, muslims, persians, turks, tuaregs, etc. An encyclopedia covers the history of a subject not the current state on its own. So if muslims were known as muslims for 2,000 years and suddenly became known as towelheads for 10 years consistently we may add that into the introduction but historically they are not the "towelheads". Furthermore it is likely they would only be called towelheads in English (one of millions of languages) and only in one country (the US) as slang tends to be national or regionalized, nevertheless the muslims themselves might not call themselves this, so Muslim would continue to be the term we use. Also we have different standards for different subjects. If BPI started being referred to as "big slime" we would never change the name of the article to that, people religions companies have the right to call themselves what they want and it is most beneficial to direct the article titles as such. Products on the other hand are often known by a common name, for example people call Aspirin aspirin whether or not its made by the company that holds the patent or not, same with fruit loops, any rainbow cereal made of little rings is commonly called this. In the case of pink slime the name it seen with some contempt by the company itself but generally is accurate, it is pink when it comes out of the tubes and is so thin and narrow that it is slimey, we could call it red squishy too and for that matter that term would literally illustrate any ground meat or animal product, but people call this product pink slime for most of its history so it stays. I hope that has explained things to you.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

As I cited before this sort of abusive naming is already not permitted by the policy its supporters are trying to cite. Collect, I am not trying to take a side on the issue, merely to point out that people calling "pink slime" an appropriate encycopedic term while calling the industry term a propaganda device are applying a double standard. Praetonia (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Already not permitted" I find it confusing why you would make statements with such authority when you don't even cite a policy. Furthermore any policy is open to common outcomes, consensus, and adaptation to circumstances. LFTB is a propaganda term IMHO but that is not why we picked pink slime as the article title, it is because the general public and the media calls it pink slime. Muslims calling themselves muslims and us not referring to them as Towelheads is not a double standard against racists it's simply stating the facts as they are.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

"Filler"

The intro describes Pink Slime as a "filler." The provided link goes to Meat Extenders, which says they are non-meat protein products. I looked up meat and the article says meat is muscle, fat, and often the associated tissue. I understand Pink Slime is the other tissues, but that would mean that it's "meat" and hence not a "meat extender" or "filler." 98.243.172.27 (talk) 05:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have deleted the link to "meat extenders". --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that it really is a filler/extender in every useful sense, and it's just that previously it never occurred to anyone that meat would be used as a meat extender. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime is cited as filler, what filler links to is irrelevant as that article discusses filler in every context including many that don't apply to meat or even food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luciferwildcat (talk • contribs)

But linking to an article that has nothing to do with the use of the word in the article is pointless. Should I link every other word to puppies or kittens? Rip-Saw (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No but pink slime is not meat, it's cattle matter from the scraps of the meat cutting process, it includes some connective tissues but those are only "often" included as part of what meat is, but that is referring to some nerves in your steak, not only nerves plus all the rest of the waste, see the difference?LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Banned in UK

Sources:

Nutrition: America awakens to the sour taste of 'pink slime' - The Independent

"Not for nothing, they argue, has the stuff been banned in Europe, where mechanically-separated meat from cows and sheep has been prohibited since the era of BSE."

Seven Million Pounds of “Pink Slime” Beef Destined for National School Lunch Program - Yahoo News

""Pink slime," which is officially called "Lean Beef Trimmings," is banned for human consumption in the United Kingdom."

Add that in with the Gothamist source and there we go. Silverseren^C 20:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually not -- all US beef was "banned" for years in the EU and UK. Every ounce. And for a decade all UK beef was banned in the EU. Until 2008, all Brazilian beef was banned in the EU. South Africa bans all UK beef. And per [9] the ban is not in any way specific to "pink slime." The UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) said it had agreed to the moratorium but stressed there was no evidence of any risk to human health from eating cow and sheep meat produced from the low-pressure 'Desinewed Meat' (DSM) removal technique. Which is not the product considered by this article. Cheers.

That is not what the sources say.LuciferWildCat (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Um -- try looking this up -- the "pink slime" sources do not say it, but the Guardian, Telegraph and The Times among thousands of sources certainly have said it. The new "pink slime" ban is not the only "ban" on US beef historically in the EU and UK. And try to read sources before saying "it is not what sources say" Lucifer. Collect (talk) 09:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It should be noted that the US really doesn't mass process meat anymore. Most of it is done in Canada & Mexico and it is Mexico that is processing the slime as it were. Additionally, as near as I can tell, the USDA has guidelines and no real regulation on the matter. Despyria (talk) 07:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

What you say does not appear to be true. In 2009 American meat companies produced 26 billion pounds of beef [ [10]], and the United States imported only 3.2 billion pounds of beef and veal from other countries (including 1 billion pounds from Canada, the largest supplier) [11]. It should also be noted that the "pink slime" factory is in South Dakota, which last time I looked was not part of Mexico. --MelanieN (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is grossly misleading to label pink slime as banned in the UK if all US beef is. cherry picking information to support your side does not belong in Wikipedia. Rip-Saw (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not cherry picking, all American meat will not always be banned in the UK. But pink slime and other non-traditional meats don't make the cut and never will. Pink slime and chicken nuggets could have been banned in the same bill but that doesn't mean we can't mention pink slime is illegal because the nuggets are too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikitionary entries

It links to "pink slime" "boneless lean beef trimming" and "lean finely textured beef". The first one makes sense. The other two are just directs. If they are just other names for the same thing, you don't need to link to them. Just mention "alternate names" in the pink slime entry. Dream Focus 00:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

People may want to know exactly what each term is and they are not redirects, for example LFTB explains that it is an initialism, boneless lean beef trimmins explains that it is an industry term, pink slime explains in a single sentence what the cattle derivative is, soylent pink explains the origin of that term, while beef states specifically what beef is and is relevant as this there is a debate and such a debate is mentioned in the article, the template is designed to easily box in several terms and several are mentioned in the article as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope -- the "definitions" in Wiktionary are less complete than this article has! And POV pushing on Wiktionary is likely just as bad as POV pushing here. I defended "pink slime" as being "common name" but pushing "soylent pink" is a full mile past the mark. At this point, your edit war to add the Wiktionary material here is disruptive at the very least. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how wiktionary works, complete is easy to achieve there, and one sentence in a dictionary means complete. I have not pushed any point of view on wiktionary, it's actually not possible. You can only add definitions and it has been peer reviewed over there. I am not adding anything, I am preventing your constant removals, something that you have been doing from the start of this article, and most of what you removed has been cited over time and all you did was detract from the article growing organically. I have yet to see any additions of your own to progress the article just snip snip snip and that's why I can't take you seriously.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Infobox photo not beef, it's chicken

I'm removing the infobox photo since a Huffington Post article from 10/04/10 has the same photo and says it's chicken. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/mechanically-separated-meat-chicken-mcnugget-photo_n_749893.html Mojoworker (talk) 21:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this error, and for maintaining accuracy in the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

We could use it as an example of a similar product or of meat/food industrialization. Also are you sure, it has widely been reported as being pink slime and only that one huffpo article calls it chicken.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post got it from this August 3rd, 2009 posting that also says chicken: http://blog.fooducate.com//2009/08/03/guess-whats-in-the-picture-foodlike-substance/ What are the dates you're seeing on that photo calling it Pink Slime and from what sources? Also the photos of Pink Slime/BLBT I've seen aren't quite so pink – perhaps since it's been heated. They look like this: http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/03/12/031212-news-pink-slime-1-2/ Mojoworker (talk) 05:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is this image still linked in the External Links section? I am removing it pending further discussion. Mojoworker (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Possibly helpful infographic

From ProPublica, "And You Thought It Was Just ‘Pink’ Slime" If nothing else, this speaks to the relationship between pink slime/LFTB and advanced meat recovery, germane to a previous merge request. --BDD (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Diane Sawyer image

Why should we include an image of Diane Sawyer? How does that help the reader? Von Restorff (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't; we shouldn't. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are there pictures of anyone in the article? Since when does quoting someone require a picture of the person? Dream Focus 12:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All the pictures are related to the controversy and are similar to the images used in the media when reporting for example how Jamie Oliver brought the issue to the public's attention they show a picture of him, when they say which grocers, restaurants, or nations have banned it they show a picture of a location or map of the country. It helps illustrate who has been reporting on this matter, especially for in the future when it is not common knowledge who the anchor was for this report. Luciferwildcat 05:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter who the anchor was. The job of an anchor is to look pretty and read text written by other people out loud. Von Restorff (talk) 05:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the anchor is the head of the news organizations and the big three networks have the three highest ranking positions in American media and only in the last few years were they ever women or "pretty" not that Sawyer is. Furthermore she is an active part of the story, asking questions and presenting (talking about the issue) for half the segment, the other reporter is just her correspondent.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Big news for you -- news shows are scripted. Collect (talk) 23:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is immaterial, news articles are copywritten or crowdsourced, films edited by numerous artists, hacks, and executives, books and researched are sliced and diced.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In short, having her image here is about as useful as having Ted Baxter's image to give gravitas to a news story. Cheers and thanks for noting that. Collect (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

That's original research. Prove she is not the journalist that developed and reported the story.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It is YOU who must prove (through use of sources) that she IS a journalist who developed and reported the story in a significant way. And "developed and reported" must mean something more than just a newsreader delivering a scripted news report or interview. Meowy 20:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No I don't it's obvious, that is what her position is, should I have to prove now that every source from a particular journalist was actually written by them, and go reinterview the people. That is just ridiculous.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Warning to user:LuciferWildCat

Break 1

Lucifer, if you don't stop filling the article with inflammatory allegations sourced to POV sources - such as your latest edits which I have reverted - I am going to ask that you be topic-banned from this subject. --MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I should add that the sources I am objecting to are "Nutrition: America awakens to the sour taste of 'pink slime', The Independent, 28-03-2012, access date 12-04-2012" and "The Media Sliming Of “Pink Slime”, Tracey Schelmetic, Thomasnet News, 30-03-2012, access date 12-04-2012". Both are POV; neither pretends to be objective reporting. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am just adding new content in good faith. Some of which was kept. It's not POV material, it's from the news. For example I happen to know that it is mixed and heated to 100*F but we didn't have source for that so it got cut out earlier. It's also been mentioned by BPI that floor scraps are not used but this source states otherwise and that is important to note. I have added tons of information that is pro pink slime, such as the governor's tour and that the USDA undersecretary at the time found it safe, and i'm just adding interesting information as I can find it. I would love to find a source that shows that it is heated to 100*F exactly because that would better explain why it is highly pathogenic and how bacteria ridden cattle product needs to be sanitized, also I know we do not explicitly mention that it is run through little tubes after the centrifuge and that is where it gets gassed. Don't think that deserves a topic ban.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

While I fully agree with the advice given to our satanic friend here, I fully disagree with your assessment of the Independent -- a wholly reliable British broadsheet newspaper. We can be judicious in our determinations of whether/how to use it, but it is entirely usable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The Independent is definitely a reliable source. Silverseren^C 20:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I trust you mean that the intermediate state may have bacteria before the ammonia treatment -- the word "pathogenic" is a trifle strong for the end product as it would imply the end product causes disease. Collect (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

So from the sources I have read and cited, the meat is already high in bacteria, that is to say it has far more bacteria than regular raw meat. Furthermore that once heated in the separation centrifuge that process (heat, lots of bacteria, moisture, oxygen) propagates more bacteria. The sources don't say it may have more bacteria but rather that it does have more bacteria. Pathogenic is a word that means having pathogens, and in fact is much less harsh than "bacteria ridden" but both are true.LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources say the meat may have bacteria, and that ammonia kills all the bacteria that may be present. Your apparent assertion that the meat is intrisically disease ridden is not in the sources, and I fear is something you know rather than what is reliably sourced. The word means "capable of producing disease" which is a step beyond the sourcing at least. Collect (talk) 22:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Independent is a reliable source. I'm not sure why User:Canuckian89 reverted this edit. Mojoworker (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Because of the other inappropriate edits (such as the POV wikitionary links) that were added. Sometimes the good edits get caught in with the bad. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 23:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

What inappropriate edits? All I did was add in content from reliable sources, some users seem to think that more information is not needed in the article since most of the available information is seen by them as negative. Also wiktionary links are not point of view, they are standard practice when there are corresponding entries at wiktionary, in this particular case they are more useful since there is debate as to what pink slime is and is not. I think it is really lazy editing to not check what it is you are removing or not removing blindly.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I added it back in after reading through it. Dream Focus 23:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I gave the impression that I thought "The Independent" is not a reliable source. It is, of course, in its straight news reporting. But the piece linked is not straight news reporting; it is more of an op-ed piece, in the "Life Style" section of the paper. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That is incorrect. All articles about food are in the Life & Style - Food and Drink section, as that article is. Furthermore, the author, Guy Adams, is a staff member for the paper, not a random op-ed person. If it was an op-ed piece, it would have been in the Opinion section. Silverseren^C 03:13, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

It really is a reliable paper and it is not an editorial, I was acting in good faith when I added the content, I really dislike that you would warn me after adding some content once.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Break 2

The style and tone of that article is so non-journalistic that I don't think it can be regarded it as reporting. If I turned in something like that to the paper I write for, it would be rejected. Even the headline - "America awakes to the sour taste of 'pink slime' " - is POV, not meant to be taken literally as evidence that the product actually tastes sour. Similarly the references to "Mr. Pedigree Chum", "vaguely digestible," the definition of ammonium hydroxide as "a chemical used in household cleaners and home-made bombs", etc. This is cutesy writing, not journalism, full of exaggeration and metaphor - certainly not to be used as the sole source for otherwise unsourced info like the claim that the product is "scraped off the abattoir floor".
And Lucifer, my warning was based on your conduct over the past month or so; you seem to be trying to cram as much negative information into this article as you can, sometimes on the flimsiest of sources, while some of us are trying really hard to keep it neutral. --MelanieN (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion about the article is nice. But just because you don't like the way it is written doesn't make it any less reliable. Silverseren^C 14:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you seriously arguing that everything in this article should be taken as literal and reliable? For example, that the product tastes sour, or that the pet food scraps are collected by someone named Mr. Pedigree Chum? --MelanieN (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Non journalistic to you, perhaps they have a more sincere media where this article was written and the United States has some of the most bias propaganda as news in the free world. If you are a journalist, I truly feel for you as I don't feel we have a very free press here at all and it must be terribly frustrating. As for sour, it has several definitions including "a disagreeable something" and by all published accounts people find pink slime to be very disagreeable. Ammnonia is used in cleaners and home made bombs and the fact that the sources state that even prisons have sent the blocks of pink slime back to the company believing it to be contaminated with ammonia because of how strong it reeks shows that it's not an extreme analogy at all. I believe the readers in the UK are simply better educated and can understand a metaphor but some of the things you think are sarcastic are not. If this paper mentions "scraping off the abattoir floor" and other sources state that it is "salvage meat" or "not meat" and the company keeps insisting in its PR videos "it's not from the floor, salvage, it's beef it's beef it's beef" then those two things correlate pretty strongly and show it is not sarcasm to me. Why don't we state that it has been reported the product is scraped off the abattoir floor and other surfaces with a squeegee but the company stated it is not off the floor. Both are citeable and this is a neutral way of stating it. Not mentioning that a product that is subject to controversy based on public disgust is from floor scraps would be bias and not NPOV in favor of the company. I don't use flimsy sources, I added nearly all the sources to the article including most of the content that is "positive" toward LFTB. I keep researching it and adding in information as I encounter it, that has been my edit history over the past few weeks.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course not, but I don't think it's all that difficult to tell when the author is being sarcastic. Silverseren^C 16:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I submit that you can't really tell if "scraped off the abattoir floor" is sarcasm, or is the result of his own independent journalism (since no Reliable Source seems to have said this for him to be quoting). This is the kind of "information" I objected to, that Lucifer was adding to the page on the strength of this article. In any case, Reliable Sources do not mix sarcasm with fact and leave the reader to guess which is which. --MelanieN (talk) 17:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

That's what is scary about this product, it really is made up of any scrap of cattle they can find, it wouldn't surprise me if there was bone in it too, there definitely is cartilage in it. And the writer is not being sarcastic, squeegees are routinely used in meat processing plants to remove the scraps from the surfaces the workers used and the matter is dumped into trash bins, although the trash bins are not actually the trash, they are used to store the matter until it is reused for some other purpose and it's not different for pink slime. If you YouTube a video for meat packing plant you will easy spot this in the background. I feel that people have a right to know what is in this and stand by the fact that people sincerely trust wikipedia and we owe it to them to get to the bottom of this, I personally have absolutely no objection whatsoever to adding so-called positive material either, I just don't find much but I have added some. As I research the topic the vast majority of the material could be viewed as negative. However I find that is overly polar thinking and I just add the truths I find in the amounts warranted by the coverage.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Lucifer, I'm surprised you didn't say "there's probably shit in it too" as you did under Sources and facts CarsonsDad (talk) 04:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm just swinging through here because I was curious about what's become of this article. The article itself looks decent (it's a bit over-referenced, which is to be expected to a certain degree on a subject like this), so I hope that everyone keeps working at it. I just wanted to drop a comment in this section specifically, after skimming through the discussion here. I agree with everything that you're saying Lucifer (at least, I think that I do...), but I can see where Melanie is coming from as well. We've got to be careful not to specifically advocate for or against anything here (NPOV, you know?). We shouldn't be especially friendly towards industry, but we shouldn't be "out to get them" either. As much as I agree with the position that this stuff isn't fit to be called food (and certainly shouldn't be sold to our kids in schools! good god!), this article can't be allowed to be turned into a propaganda piece. I think that the editors working on this need to take a more "just the facts, Ma'am" sort of approach (not completely, but going in more that direction).
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and I am glad someone can tell I really am trying to make sure it is the best most honest article possible. We should not advocate anything at all, but based on the available reliable sources we cannot give undue weight to the industry by omitting adding anything else negative just because it may seem overwhelming to some. I don't think propaganda is cool at all, but just stating the available facts both the pros and the cons and the statements made by the antis pros and the thirds and allow people to make an educated assessment of what is out there on a commercial free medium is my only goal here, I hope I have not come off as overly passionate here, just been trying to step over and around single purpose and IP accounts from Iowa (BPI) and Pennyslvania (API) here. Speaking of which we should cover the fact that API has gone backrupt over this controversy.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wholesome

The editsummary of this edit is: no the usda describes it as wholesome too, it is in one of the citations and i believe that safeway does also call it that. Please tell me which source. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 11:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe FSN?: "Safeway said "considerable consumer concern" led to its decision to drop the product, even though the company and the the U.S. Department of Agriculture insist the product is both safe and wholesome." Von Restorff (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure which one at this point there are just so many sources but I cam 100% certain it is sourced in at least one if not multiple of the sources herein. I personally remember being outraged at this product being called wholesome as I read through the sources to add content.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you a source. Don't you want to incorporate that in the article? Von Restorff (talk) 05:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do it friend?LuciferWildCat (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In this source http://abcnews.go.com/US/safeway-supervalu-food-lion-stop-selling-pink-slime/story?id=15974064#.T3bVZNnZeSo note the inverted commas indicating a quote and the company said in a statement at the end. It is Safeway that has said, in a statement, that "finely textured beef is safe and wholesome" and has claimed that the USDA agrees with this "safe and wholesome" characterisation. There are sources that show the USDA has described it as "safe", but no sources have been cited that show the USDA has ever directly described it as "wholesome". That Food Satety News article is a example of lazy writing. However, it does state that the content is based on the ABC news report released the day earlier, and the words "Safeway said" begin the sentence with the "wholesome" claim in it. Meowy 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice edit -- well spotted. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

One of the sources already used (in the video of the USDA official) she states in plain English that it is wholesome, numerous third parties have reported that the USDA considers it wholesome including many sources used here.LuciferWildCat (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

What video source? The only video source I see in the article, the abc news report, does not contain the word "wholesome". Please state here what specific source(s) you are talking about. Meowy 16:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the video of the USDA chick.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Give the url HERE, and the time where it is said. Meowy 16:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Supermarkets

With an apparent effort to produce within the body of this article an exhaustive list of food sellers which have removed or plan to remove this product, I was surprised to find northeastern supermarket Stop and Shop excluded from your list. Their announcement to discontinue the sale of this product is at least as old as Kroger's, and yet they are nowhere to be found. Here is the source, would someone be so good as to correct the article? http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/story/health/story/2012-03-22/Kroger-Stop-amp-Shop-join-pink-slime-exodus/53710638/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.53.69 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

BPI is a subsidiary of Tyson Foods Inc

I noticed in the pink slime article that BPI and Tyson Foods Inc. we're listed as separate entities. Tyson owns BPI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kana76 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Prove it.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources and facts

This article is VERY controversial. The media (as of the time of this note being added) is involved with an obvious demonetization of this product.

The OPINIONS need to be removed. There can be a section for "Controversy" to cover such things, but the FACTS need to be FACTS and the sources need to be reliable.

The FDA has done studies on this product, and deemed it safe for consumption. The process and treatment of the product has also bee scrutinized. It looks gross and the process sounds horrible, but its no worse the Hot Dogs and slim-jims or other Mechanically separated meat.

This article should probably be under Mechanically separated meat Aperseghin (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

You created your account just last month, so you aren't any more "real" than me and my IP address. No normal person would use the word demonetization except in jest. It's beyond even buzzword bingo. Convince me you aren't paid to promote this gunk. 71.46.230.154 (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Funny how this whole tangent is written with orders for us, talking down to us, that they will allow us to have a "controversy" section while incessantly repeated talking points about opinions and facts, for a product only known as pink slime and made up of sanitized rectums, there's probably shit in it too.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Off-topic, but I'd just like to point out that "Pink slime" and "Sanitized rectums" are metal songs just crying out to be written. Scopecreep (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

NPOV as defined by LuciferWildCat: "there's probably shit in it too." CarsonsDad (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

There is shit in it bro.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As the old graffiti advises us: Eat shit. Ten billion flies can't be wrong! CarsonsDad (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

look at my other edits, they have nothing to do with this. i did use the word in jest but i believe it to be true. Im not advocating the rampant use of "leftover scraps" as a staple in everyone diet, but im not blind to whats going on. Meat is meat, ammonia seems to be the issue here but as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia#Antimicrobial_agent_for_food_products, its a subject that has been discussed over and over. The current article is very negative and lacking information about the actual process, how and why the ammonia is used and it needs to be renamed as "Pink Slime" is very ambiguous. all im saying here is that WikiPedia is a place for facts not opinions.Aperseghin (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Pink slime is not at all ambiguous, it is the prevailing term for this product, and it is the only term not promoted by this company. Only the idiotic spokeswoman for pink slime says "meat is meat" over and over again, like the high fructose corn syrup lobby keeps insisting sugar is sugar, or the spokeswoman for santorum keeps say "he is pro life" when asked questions like "where did he get his information that 10% of dutch are euthanized / against their will / are you going to answer"? Meat is meat but this article is not the meat article it is the pink slime article. If it were meat it would be able to be sold as meat, but it can't be, in fact it is illegal to sell it as meat even according to Beef Products own website it is only legal as an additive to ground beef.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim that finely textured meat is not approved for use in Canada may not be correct, based on this website from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/meavia/man/ch4/table4e.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.74 (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I have removed that claim. It turned out that it was not supported by the references cited anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I went looking for the claim that "It consists of finely ground beef scraps, sinew, fat, and connective tissue", and the sources given were FoxNews and some guy claiming that in a Reuters article. The stuff is meat, this article, even the title, is poisoned with lies, unsupported statements, and poor references. It's actually sad. I don't have the time or the patience to fix this horrible article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abracadabra777 (talk • contribs) 08:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Soylent pink

• Y! Big Story: Pink slime and other food fights, apparently it is also known as 'soylent pink' and originally 'nasty pink slime'. This article has a lot of new content that can be incorporated into the article as well.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope. See WP:NPOV. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Redirect tagged for deletion. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 01:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The neutral point of view is to report what it is called.LuciferWildCat (talk) 01:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

And your single source is not sufficient to make the claim. Cheers. Wikipedia is not here to preach how evil Beef Products is, and how horrid their product is. Wikipedia is here to provide encyclopedic information. Period. Adding defamatory stuff because someone wrote it is not how an encyclopedia is made. Collect (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not my source, it's a major medium as a source. Soylent pink is not saying it is evil, it is saying that the researchers that coined it pink slime also called it soylent pink. The sources don't say anything is horrid, nor did I add that so I fail to see why you would bring that up. This information is not defamatory, it is accurate and from the USDA scientist's mouth. someone didn't write it, that is deceptive, a reputable journalist reported what the scientists that did not want this product approved wrote this. I agree we need not unnecessarily defame anyone but I find that you are being overzealous here and neutrality does not mean sugarcoating negativity, it means objectively reporting what the sources say whether the general impression be good or bad, and that is subjective to say the least.09:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling a spade a spade doesn't violate our rules when the spade is obviously a spade, positive or negative. It's a good article by a reputable publisher and we should use it if there's information to be extracted. We don't leave content out simply because it's not nice. Realistically, the best way for companies to avoid negative exposure like this would be to not secretly put disgusting stuff in our food - but when they do, we report it. SÆdon^talk 01:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The source attributes the term to a single person. Absent any reason to think it is in "common usage" in reliable sources, it is not usable. I would suggest, moreover, that the article is quite sufficiently negative at this point. Collect (talk) 11:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Any reference to the term "soylent pink" would be inappropriate. The term has not passed into common use, and it is way too negative a term to use on the basis of a single passing reference. --MelanieN (talk) 04:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

How is anyones "feeling" that the article negative at all relevant, shouldn't we just worry about it being accurate? Negative is very arbitrary, I mean should be whitewash the article on Nazism or Hitler or concentration camp, because they are too negative? That would be original research and personally I don't see how soylent pink is negative at all, in fact it sounds alot more marketable than pink slime to me, and since both were credited to a single man and reported to be in common usage among the USDA scientific community we should describe the history of how that unfolded as is our job as an encyclipedia.LuciferWildCat (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, you just lost the debate. Von Restorff (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

LOL, good catch, Von Restoff! I'll try one more time to explain to Lucifer and get him to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. In the first place, this term has NOT passed into common usage as Pink Slime has. And in the second place, "not negative at all"? Nothing could be more horrible than a comparison to Soylent Green, which (if you recall) was made from human flesh. Even Pink Slime doesn't deserve that kind of analogy - especially not if the analogy was made by only one person and not picked up in general usage. --MelanieN (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It is still historically relevant and what does the negativity matter, again does that mean we should tout how well organized Auswitcz and not any of the bad stuff since it's "negative".?LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not write stupid shit like that. Thanks in advance, Von Restorff (talk) 11:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

 Confirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Come off it, Lucifer. There is already plenty of "bad stuff" in the article, nobody is trying to sanitize it. We are only objecting to this one nickname, because it is not in common use. And quit with the Nazi analogies. As Von Restorff pointed out, using Hitler analogies is virtually always a losing argument. --MelanieN (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me why you keep attacking the type of argument instead of confronting the analogy, it could be any bad thing such as tobacco companies lying or the FBI addicting black people to crack. The point is that whether the content is negative botched and lazy argument. The term is clearly relevant and should be included and it is in use, as much as lean, finely textured beef is.LuciferWildCat (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Please watch A Film Unfinished (if you are 18+, this is not a Disney movie with a happy ending), then you'll understand why I dislike that analogy. AFAIK the FBI has a different goal. The comparison you made to tobacco companies lying about their product is much more fitting. My personal opinion about whether or not to include the term soylent pink is irrelevant; I am not a reliable source. When in doubt, stick to the sources. Von Restorff (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well I am American and we had a big war with the Nazis so it's one of the first things to come up when you think of something "bad", if you don't like it cause it reminds you of concentration camps, though for you, it really happened and I wont pretend it didn't to make others more comfortable, it's just an analogy anyways and nothing more, although I do 'spose the tobacco analogy is lines up better but it's really off the point. My general point is what you just said, if the sources say it let's report on that regardless if it is negative or not, or else it is revisionist.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Sources:

AFA Foods blames 'pink slime' controversy for bankruptcy filing - Los Angeles Times

The Pennsylvania company is blaming the recent coverage of ammonia-treated boneless lean beef trimmings – variously mocked as “pink slime” or “Soylent Pink” – for its dire financial straits.

Will BPI's Plant Closures Affect America's Ground Beef? - Food Safety News

Following Monday's announcement by Beef Products Inc. that the company would suspend operations at three of the four facilities that produce lean finely textured beef (LFTB), many wonder what lasting impact major supermarkets and restaurant chains will have as they stop buying the product publicly derided as "pink slime" or "soylent pink."

http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-pink-slime-beef-products-20120326,0,495550.story - Los Angeles Times

Still, he refers to the cheap meat product as “gross stuff.” It's also been referred to as “Soylent Pink” in a nod to the classic science fiction film “Soylent Green.”

Beef — er, pink slime — it’s what’s for school lunch. And I’m okay with it. - Washington Post

None of the other names for the substance do much for it either. “Soylent Pink ” was floated at one point. Even its official title “Lean Beef Trimmings,” is little better.

There's your sources. Silverseren^C 08:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. They are unconvincing, however. "...was floated at one point" is another way of saying it never caught on. And all three sources make clear that "Soylent Pink" is, and is intended to be, derogatory. (For that matter so is "pink slime", but at least it is in general use.) --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but that means it is a valid search target, so there should be a redirect. Silverseren^C 16:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Soylent pink has no place in this article, unless it is to specifically reference how crazy some activists can get. I do agree with a redirect, however, since it is a valid search term. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the term is around and it should be included. I see it being used by scientists here not but crazy activists. It would not be neutral to omit this content, it is especially useful in the history section where we mention the background of Mr. Zirnstein.LuciferWildCat (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

“soylent pink” has another meaning with a longer history. While gathering citations of soylent pink on Wiktionary, I found Usenet posts spanning 17 years where soylent pink was humorously used with the meaning “Spam”. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• And there are probably 230 years or more of the word beef never being used to mean fecal exposed floor scraps or ammonia, but as any good lexicographer would know, there are multiple senses to words and soylent pink has come to specifically mean pink slime.LuciferWildCat (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

RFC soylent pink

• Do the sources provided indicate that in addition to a redirect, the article should mention thatsoylent pink was used to refer to pink slime by the USDA scientists that also coined pink slime and that it is used by some to refer to it in the same manner as BLBT and lean, finely textured beef, and if we should link to the wiktionary entry.LuciferWildCat (talk) 08:11, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, "soylent pink" would be out of place in this article, as it appears to be a fringe usage that has not been embraced by authors of reliable sources. While there do appear to be many mentions of the term "soylent pink" in the blogosphere, there are only a handful in reliable sources. The sole USDA scientist I have seen specifically cited as having used the term is Carl Custer. The other references in reliable sources to usage of the term are worded vaguely enough (such as in: "It's also been referred to as") that the author(s) of those articles could have been referring back to Carl Custer's quoted usage of the term rather than to its usage by a wider base. However, if there is a consensus that "soylent pink" should at least be mentioned in the article, then the article should make it clear that it has been a term of derision (LATimes: "variously mocked as ..."; "publicly derided as ...").

(Note that I am merely responding to the RfC and have no personal interest one way or the other in whether "soylent pink" is ultimately included or excluded.) Dezastru (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

No, it seems like undue weight to mention such an uncommon term. --PnakoticInquisitor^talk 00:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No. I've looked, but have not found evidence of this term being more than an in-joke among a couple USDA employees. Add it if it catches on, but it's not there yet. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)