Talk:Eat Just

Promo cleanup

There was a lot of WP:PROMO language in this article. The advertisement template was definitely warranted. I did a top-to-bottom review of the article, checking the sources along the way. I did my best to preserve valuable information by copy editing, but did remove quite a bit of content that was either purely promotional or unsupported. Especially with emerging companies it's important to not misrepresent the information contained in a reference. I'll read over the article in a few minutes and then remove the advertising template as I think the issue is resolved at this point. Rinkle gorge (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanmac/2014/02/17/egg-replacing-startup-hampton-creek-foods-raises-23-million-from-asias-richest-man-and-yahoo-cofounder-jerry-yang/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 72.18.233.188 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) 72.18.233.188 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://abcnewsradioonline.com/health-news/egg-substitutes-from-plants-not-laid-by-chickens.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. 72.18.233.188 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC) 72.18.233.188 (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Introduction

Hi,

It appears the introduction needs some re-organization. I will try to get to this soon, other editors please feel free to share thoughts. thanks ReginaldTQ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to suggest we editors make comments here on the talk page before reverting people's writing with long comments. The plant database should go in the introduction. It is really interesting.ReginaldTQ (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Logo

Doesn't this page need a logo? ReginaldTQ (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done Daylen (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on the Style of Writing Wikipedia Articles

In order to avoid an edit war, I would like to clarify why I have chosen to describe Hampton Creek as a company "that focuses on finding new ways of utilizing plants to replace eggs in a variety of different product." The previous version of "focuses on finding new methods of identifying plants to make food healthier, sustainable and affordable" is written in a style that borders on promotion and advertising. As per Wikipedia's policy on promotion and advertising, information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. Describing a company as trying to make food healthier, sustainable, and affordable doesn't impart any new information, is unverifiable, and sounds like advertising. The fact that these words were taking from an internet source doesn't mean more information is imparted. The source that is referenced is Mashable.com, which is not the most reliable of sources and the article is written like advertising.

To give you some perspective, every food company and restaurant claim that they make food healthier, sustainable, and affordable. McDonald's has made claims regarding their health benefits, environmental causes, and prices. We don't mention in the Wikipedia article an activity or claim every company is making (Hampton Creek also pays its taxes. Not relevant to article). I have stated that Hampton Creek is finding new ways of using plants to replace eggs because that's what the company does. That's the most accurate depiction of what they do.DivaNtrainin (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow! That's really interesting DivaN, I had no idea how common that claim was. I agree with all that you've said except for the egg thing being 'what they do.' I follow this company because my daughter's food allergies. they seem to have fmore going on than just eggs. Also, I think Mashable is good! They are credible.

For now I'll focus on help with the logo and some other basic stuff. Perhaps other editors want to weigh in, here? ReginaldTQ (talk) 00:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to help this article and find it very frustrating that many of my good edits are getting undone without discussion. It makes me not want to edit, because some people seem to have an agenda and follow their own rules. ReginaldTQ (talk) 00:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've explained the revert in the commit message ("This would be better added to the Just Mayo page."). I've added your sentence to this article in the paragraph that discusses the distribution of the product. Badzil (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I also don't appreciate you suggesting that I "have an agenda". Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Badzil (talk) 05:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to work with someone that undoes your edits without discussion. Feels pretty personal to me, that's all I'm saying. ReginaldTQ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you not see the edit summary? Badzil (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit

There was a huge lawsuit from Hellman's stating that hampton just mayo shouldn't be labeled as mayo because it has no eggs in it. We should add some more info on that. I don't see any at all.Ilikeguys21 (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Creek#Recent_developments_.282015-2016.29 Daylen (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:PROMO

This article, although properly formatted and sourced, is obviously written like a blatant advertisement, starting with the lead section. It will require heavy editing before it can even pass Wikipedia's manual of style. --MewMeowth (talk) 07:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

it's probably written by the company since their is a direct link to this wikipedia page from their website172.249.4.111 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

172.249.4.111, do you think I should ask the company to remove the link. It is also on the company's Twitter profile. Was the article written by a Hampton Creek employee? Daylen (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

hampton creek scam

should hampton creek buying its own mayo be included as part of a criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.249.4.111 (talk) 05:31, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Bloomberg Article http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-04/food-startup-ran-undercover-project-to-buy-up-its-own-products Flounder19 (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Creek#Recent_developments_.282015-2016.29 Daylen (talk) 02:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sections and Funding

Some of the sections made no sense the way they are grouped and I will try to fix, but would be open to suggestion or help on that.

I also see the funding hasn't been updated in a while, but I am nervous about messing up the chart formatting so maybe someone else wants to handle that. I can help research ReginaldTQ (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I just added a row for their Series D, but per my edit comment, I don't think a table like this should be in this sort of article. Wikipedia is not a database. Its articles should be text narratives. There are other sites out there that are much better for displaying the historical and current funding status of startup companies. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just vs. Hampton Creek

The company name has changed and am not sure that it makes sense to change the name within the article. Would appreciate some additional opinion on this.ReginaldTQ (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Promotional writing still present?

Hi,

This article still needs a scrub down of puffery and promotional POV in my opinion. This is my first time reading it and it still seems to be written defensively.

Thanks

daylon124 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I think the article does have some problems with that — I haven't checked whether it was worse in the past or not. I removed this particular "advert" tag because it may overstate the extent, and the COI tag gives enough of a hint. I'll try to apply some WP:sofixit here to see if I can help. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, this is a tougher job than I'd hoped. It has been cleaned up, and there are no low hanging edit fruit here, nothing terribly glaring. I think it needs a top to bottom heavy edit for tone, style, relevance, due weight to the significant things, and being up to date. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

JUST, Inc. > Eat JUST, Inc.

JUST, Inc. changed its corporate/legal entity to Eat JUST, Inc. It needs to be updated on the title of the wiki. How does one accomplish that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:4E01:E810:B0E9:8D62:F35D:74C4 (talk) 20:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as suggested below. However the company seems most commonly referred with capitals, i.e. JUST. If this is true, anyone should feel free to move it to the capitalised version. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

---

JUST, Inc. → Eat JUST, Inc. – Company corporate/legal name has been changed via incorporation papers in Delaware from JUST, Inc. to Eat Just, Inc. Anoyes202 (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Anoyes202 2601:1C2:4E01:E810:B0E9:8D62:F35D:74C4 (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Eat Just (without "Inc.") per MOS:TM, WP:TITLETM, WP:ALLCAPS, and WP:NCCORP. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• Alternatively Just (company) as WP:RECOGNIZABLE, "Eat" doesn't appear in the marketing material. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No objection from me. The formal/legal name is not what matters, per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Introduction from representative at Eat JUST, Inc.

My name is Andrew and I work in Communications at Eat JUST, Inc.. I wanted to extend my apologies for the company's prior involvement in this page, resulting in the tag. Myself, my predecessors, and a consultant that was hired years ago have all edited anonymously without understanding we were doing something inappropriate. I’m sorry for any trouble this may have caused and hope to be a better participant in the future that follows WP:COI. Anoyes202 (talk) 22:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in policy afaik that bans anyone from editing any article based just on the person's background, such as relation to the subject. I wish to take the tag away, I wish to know if there are any neutrality concerns in the content and they could be addressed. Editors please raise them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

JUST, Inc. > Eat JUST, Inc. > Eat Just, Inc.

JUST, Inc. → Eat Just, Inc. – Company corporate/legal name has been changed via incorporation papers in Delaware from JUST, Inc. to Eat Just, Inc. This should be changed in references throughout the Wikipedia article, including title, which currently is Just. You can find references to the formal name on the company's website in FAQ, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy and in press releases on Business Wire. Anoyes202.

Done Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed draft for Eat Just page

I am in the Communications Dept. at Eat Just. I would like to share a proposed rewrite of the current article, so that independent, impartial editors have an opportunity to review the draft and provide any feedback. In comparison to the current article, I believe the draft would be a substantial improvement because:

• Expanded, more complete and up-to-date warts and all history with quality citations including controversial events

• Products section is a prose-style summary rather than a product directory with dedicated sections for each product

• Content is more complete, more neutral and more comprehensive
• It has more up-to-date information
• Reduces trivia like listing investors for each funding round

• Controversies are summarized and are merged into the chronology of events in the History section, per WP:CRITS rather than in a dedicated controversy section


Pinging @Wikidemon: who has made edits to avoid promotion in this page in the past and would be a good editor to scrutinize my contributions.
 Anoyes202 (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2020 (UTC)


Why do you wish to rewrite the page? Despite wp:OSE, show me one similar page with no controversy section. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Secondly look at this. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Yogesh Khandke. I wish to rewrite the page in order to improve its overall quality, format, citations, and timeliness. The Wikipedia essay WP:CRITS (cited above) has a section here called “Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies.” For an example of another company page with no dedicated "Controversies" section, I might suggest the Sega page, which was listed as a Featured Article earlier this year.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance. As I have a conflict of interest, it might be better for you to discuss this with other volunteer editors. @Sadads: suggested they might be interested in participating. @Guy Macon: might be willing to discuss as well. I'm happy to do the legwork to help improve the page in whatever manner conforms to consensus among more impartial volunteers. Anoyes202 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


I think the rewrite version is better written and better organized; removing the emphasis on individual products and that ghastly funding table helps make it less promotional. The issues the company has faced are properly integrated into the body. Schazjmd (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Commenting here because I was pinged on my talk page. In general, I am a big supporter of editors with COIs asking uninvolved editors to make changes for them. I know that some people want to stop any kind of edits or even influence from those who have a COI, but doing that is a lot like Prohibition in the United States; punishing those who follow the rules and doing nothing to stop those who cheat.

The other side of this is that I always look carefully at the requested edits to make sure that they really are an improvement. My overall opinion of the draft from a quick look is that it is an improvement, but before I implement the suggested changes I would like to discuss a few things. From the draft:

"In June 2017, Target stopped selling Hampton Creek products after seeing an anonymous letter alleging food safety issues, such as salmonella and listeria at Eat Just's manufacturing facility. Target said none of its customers reported getting sick and an FDA investigation found no contaminants in Hampton Creek's products."

The LA Times source[1] certainly shows that somebody tried to do Hampton Creek wrong, and certainly supports a claim like "unsubstantiated allegations", but where in the source does it say that there was one letter (not three letters, not a phone call or a blog post) and that it was anonymous? Also, the LA Times story doesn't specify that target dropped the product over allegations of food safety issues (that's most likely what they did, but does the source says that?) as opposed to dropping the products because of allegations that they contains honey of GMO ingredients. We need to make sure that all the details in the article are supported by the sources.

Also, I am inclined to add a sentence about the report from Clifford M. Coles Food Safety Consulting.

Like I said, I agree with Schazjmd that the draft is an improvement, but I think we can make it even better. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I just reviewed the latest draft, made some edits, and replaced the current page. In my opinion, it is an improvement. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Timely updates for Eat Just page

My name is Andrew and I work for Eat Just. The company just announced a $200 million funding round which resulted in a slew of new source material in the media. I'd like to request a few small changes to incorporate the latest sources.

Requested Edits

(1) Add to the very end of the "Corporate history" section Eat Just raised $200 million in funding in March 2021, in order to fund global expansion. (2) Replace the second sentence of the "Food products" section Delete: The company is best known for its plant-based JUST Egg made from mung beans and a mayonnaise substitute called JUST Mayo, which is made primarily from a variant of the Canadian yellow pea. Replace with: The JUST Egg product made from mung beans is the company's most popular product. Reason: The mayonnaise substitute used to be one of the things we were best known for in 2014-2015 when the sources currently used on the page were published, but this is no longer an accurate characterization. More recent sources say Eat Just is best known for the JUST Egg product, without mentioning the mayonnaise substitute. (3) Add to the very end of the "Food products" section A restaurant in Singapore called 1880 became the first place to sell Eat Just's cultured meat. (This is currently mentioned in the Lead but not in the body of the page) (4) Update last sentence of first paragraph in Food products section According to Eat Just, the company has made the equivalent of 60 100M million eggs worth of food products as of 2020 March 2021. References

Thank you in advance for taking the time to review and implementing whatever changes you feel best serve the readers. Anoyes202 (talk) 01:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, with some minor changes to wording. (I prefer the current "...best known for..." construction, as "...most popular product..." sounds a bit like marketing.) I did my own searches regarding #2, and agree that the mayo substitute is hardly ever mentioned when RSs describe the company. Thanks for the nicely organized request! Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed updates to Food Products section

My name is Andrew and I work for Eat Just. I would like to request a couple updates near the end of the Food Products section as bolded below:

In December 2020, the Government of Singapore approved lab-grown meat created by Eat Just, branded as GOOD Meat.[69][70][71] Eat Just subsequently got additional approvals for different types of chicken products, such as shredded and breast chicken. A restaurant in Singapore called 1880 became the first place to sell Eat Just's cultured meat.[57] However, the arrangement with 1880 ended. Eat Just started supplying its lab-grown meats to a Cantonese restaurant called Madame Fan and a food delivery service called foodpanda instead. In 2021, Eat Just's GOOD Meat subsidiary, which focuses on cultivated meat, raised $267 million in venture capital funding.

References

Pinging @Schazjmd:, who was gracious enough to respond to a prior request. Anoyes202 (talk) 21:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Nothing is bolded. Which are the changes? Schazjmd (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding ping. @Anoyes202: Schazjmd (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Anoyes202, still no bold or new refs. Schazjmd (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Should be fixed now; sorry for the confusion Anoyes202 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done I added the approval for chicken products to Food products, Anoyes202, and the funding to the 2016–present section. I didn't make the other change. That 1880 was the first to buy it is reasonably significant, but making updates on which restaurants are now buying it isn't encyclopedic. Schazjmd (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

My name is Andrew and I work for Eat Just. In compliance with WP:COI, I'd like to suggest a couple tweaks/updates as follows:

• Add the highlighted portion to the Lead “It develops and markets plant-based alternatives to conventionally produced egg products and cultivated meat products.”
• Add the following to the end of the history section: In May 2022, Eat Just signed a contract with ABEC Inc. to build the largest meat-growing bioreactors ever constructed.

Pinging @Schazjmd:, who took enough interest to incorporate some of my previously-proposed updates. Anoyes202 (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done with some rewording and additional content from the ref. Schazjmd (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)