Talk:Solar Foods

Edit request on Oct 8, 2020

 * Information to be added or removed: Change the content to this
 * Explanation of issue: The article is currently a stub but with help of the Finnish Wikipedia article translation the article would be much longer
 * References supporting change:
 * Jjanhone (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's basically a request asking to revert Graywalls (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't believe the reason my request was declined. wants me to use talk page for suggesting changes instead of editing directly (because of my COI) and that's why he reverted my edits. And now  declined my request because Smartse had reverted my edits in the first place. Any advice what to do next? Jjanhone (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅, I don't see the issue here. I agree the article would be much longer and contain more info.--Genetics4good (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I changed the version. Jjanhone (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Overhyped
There is too much hype and mystery about this product. They say that it is "produced from thin air", but only the CO2 comes from the air and there are other mystery ingredients, plus it requires electricity. Why would a microbe require electricity? The biggest mystery is the species of singe-celled microorganism they are cultivating. I am also very surprised by what I see here on the talk page that the article cannot be edited normally. Wikipedia is a place for transparency, not smoke and mirrors. @DocJames Bio-CLC (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree and would be happy if this much shorter version used instead of the current one. You are of course free to edit the article - the discussion above is due to a paid editor editing the article on the company's behalf. as you did not use ping. SmartSE (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Well at the very least, if it's producing carbohydrates (CH20) or proteins (CH20...N), it MUST be using water as well as carbon dioxide (and if protein, then also a nitrogen source); the only other explanation would be magical divine intervention. If the sources aren't able to bring themselves to admit they use water as an input, we should reject the whole thing as WP:FRINGE. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Paid contributions tag
A paid editor made contributions to this article, and has disclosed that fact on this page, therefore the paid contributions template is a matter of fact and does not require discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to the policy "if you place the Paid tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article." As a paid editor I'm not allowed to remove the tag myself, but if any volunteer editor thinks that the neutral point of view of the article is ok, they are free to remove the tag as told in the Template:Paid contributions instructions: "If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."Jjanhone (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article is horrendously promotional - the edits I made the other day are the tip of the iceberg. I'm tempted to revert back to the previous version which seems to contain the same pertinent information but without the promotional waffle. SmartSE (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * The article still contains a crazy amount of duplicated content and could be condensed substantially. Please do not remove the tags until this is resolved. SmartSE (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Far as I am concerned it's a fairly standard C-class article. C-class article's are expected to have issues. It doesn't seem to be unduly promotional right now. GliderMaven (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There don't seem to be any major neutrality issues, the tone was previously very wrong, but you seem to have fixed that. GliderMaven (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So is there still something to be corrected with the neutrality on this article or not SmartSE? If yes, please explain like the Paid template asks. Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * These show some of the problems I've already dealt with and and based off that, there are almost certainly more misrepresentations of the sources present. I am not going to spend my time listing every problem here. You can of course try to fix the problems yourself, but otherwise please be patient. SmartSE (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging GliderMaven & Sadads to ask if you see problems with the neutrality in the article. If yes, could you help by pointing them? And if not, could you remove the tag? Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)


 * It seems broadly OK to me. GliderMaven (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I took out Advert tag. It could still use some more work towards NPOV, but I don't see anything egregious. I took a stab at it and did tone down a few more things.
 * As to the nitrogen source, one place on the company web page says "we feed it with electricity and the main ingredients captured from air: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen" and another a few lines later says "we feed them tiny bubbles of CO2 and nutrients, like nitrogen, calcium, phosphorus, and potassium." At least some Xanthobacter sp. can fix N2, but that's a tall order metabolically.  If anyone is able to determine the nitrogen source, please add it to the article, as that would be important to know. Gould363 (talk) 00:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

New world
So it sounds like it's just ground up yeast, mold, or bacteria. Or, some sort of byproduct thereof. 2603:6000:B005:C889:CF74:47A2:47E6:8C35 (talk) 23:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)