User talk:Pemmican2014

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

I replaced a formerly removed section (by Ostermann) that referenced three modern producers of pemmican and/or pemmican-inspired products: USWellness Meats, Tanka Bar and Canawa. Canawa is apparently no longer in business so was not replaced, but the other two were so, in two different sections. Since pemmican is a particular food, I created three sections (the content of the second and third only being small revisions), which delineated real pemmican from protein bars that are simply "inspired" by pemmican and bars using the word "pemmican" in the brand name. It's a significant distinction and replacing US Wellness Meats, which is presently the only pemmican for sale in the USA, brings more truth to bear.

The EPIC Bar entry is now accompanied by Tanka, as both are not pemmican, but claim to be pemmican (or wasna) "inspired." The EPIC Bar entry was placed from an IP located in the same city as EPIC Bar and had the tone of an advertisement. I stripped it of that tone and marketing data, down to a basic description of what the product is. I left it there because I believe this merits discussion and a group decision towards strengthening the accuracy of the page.

I would like to raise the question as to where one draws the line amongst Wikipedia entries between a definition and the inclusion of other subjects (or in this case commercial objects) that are only related to that subject because the owners of that object declare it so–or, in this case, state that they were "inspired" by the subject at hand. I'm referring to EPIC and Tanka Bars. If one includes them because they internally make a marketing claim that they are related to pemmican, the food, though the product doesn't match the recipe of the pemmican definition, then shouldn't we include the hundreds of jerkies and other prepared meats that are more closely related to pemmican than just those inspired by it? Or, is an internal marketing claim somehow more deserving of wikipedia space than the facts that might dispel that claims inclusion? Pemmican2014 (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]