Talk:Upside Foods/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note created by a now-blocked sockpuppet

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

Inclusion of information about cultured meatball and poultry products

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please stop editing until we reach consensus

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

Contentious content

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

References

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

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

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

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

instructive

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

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

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

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

In the volume for bulk fooodstufs? No.

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

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

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

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

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

Enough of this fiddle-faddle

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

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

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

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

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

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

Way forward

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

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

I will also present a version to my liking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First meatball

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Current Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Master Discussion Topics

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

Full protection...

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

forward-looking statements

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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