[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Breyers

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

Unsourced list of ingredients in ice cream section

[edit]

Hello! On behalf of Unilever and as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I am submitting a request to remove the (unsourced) third paragraph of the Ice cream section, which is an approximately 100 word list of ingredients. This seems to me to go against WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:UNSOURCED.

I have disclosed my conflict of interest on my profile page and at the top of this page. I generally avoid editing the main space directly and would prefer to have someone else review this request and update the page on my behalf. Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

minus Removed Left guide (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request to remove poorly sourced content

[edit]

Hi again! Continuing my work above, I'd like to suggest another improvement to the Ice cream section. Some of the descriptors like "common artificially separated and extracted ingredients" are unsupported and overly detailed, and sources #7, #8, and #9 are old ingredient lists from the Breyers website.

Therefore, I propose removing the following content: "Breyers' list of ingredients has expanded to include thickeners, low-cost sweeteners, food coloring and low-cost additives — including natural additives such as tara gum and carob bean gum; artificial additives such as maltodextrin and propylene glycol; and common artificially separated and extracted ingredients such as corn syrup, whey, and others."

I also noticed that Source #5 is a blog and not a reliable source. Do editors think it may be easier just to remove the first two paragraphs of the section given that the sourcing doesn't meet reliable source standards?

I plan on submitting draft content to improve this section, but for now, I am seeking to remove inappropriately sourced text from the page. @Left guide: I am curious if you have any thoughts since you reviewed my last post.

Thanks in advance for any help! Inkian Jason (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't love how heavily this section relies on the A Daily Scoop source, but I'm reluctant to remove (sourced) potentially-negative content on a COI editor's recommendation. My preference here would be to see the proposed replacement before removing. Poking around a little for better sourcing, this NYT article may be relevant, though it's obviously, uh, opinionated. Also the Dispatch.
Old ingredients list seem like a fine source (this seems like an uncontroversial WP:ABOUTSELF especially given that they're legally required not to lie here!) though if there are more recent ingredients lists that contradict this obviously the information should be changed or dated.
I've toned the current content down slightly and removed the content not in the citation, but not removed all of it. Rusalkii (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusalkii: Thank you for taking a look and updating the article. I'm working on the draft text now and can let you know when it is ready to review. Inkian Jason (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History update

[edit]

Hello again. For my next request, I propose replacing the first sentence of the History section:

References

  1. ^ Amy Ettinger (27 June 2017). Sweet Spot: An Ice Cream Binge Across America. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 15. ISBN 978-1-101-98420-8.

With this updated text:

  • The Breyers brand was created in 1866 by William Breyer, who made ice cream in his kitchen and sold it from a horse-drawn wagon in Philadelphia.[1] By the time of his death in 1882, he had opened six shops in Philadelphia while still manufacturing the ice cream in his home.[2]

References

  1. ^ Ettinger, Amy (2017). Sweet spot: An ice cream binge across America. New York, New York: Dutton. p. 15. ISBN 9781101984192. Retrieved August 22, 2024.
  2. ^ Funderburg, Anne Cooper (1995). Chocolate, strawberry, and vanilla: A history of American ice cream. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press. p. 56. ISBN 0879726911. Retrieved July 25, 2024.

This text is more accurate to the source and adds additional detail about the early days of Breyers. My goal is to make this beginning more complete and accurate to the source material.

 Done. Zefr (talk) 21:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if editors are interested, I did write a new draft of the article to show what I hope the final product will look like. @Rusalkii: Would you be interested in reviewing this request since you have reviewed others on this article? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:21, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Inkian Jason, I'm currently going through my backlog of requests that are waiting on a response from me in particular and working on non-controversial small requests; I'll leave looking at the draft to other editors for now. Rusalkii (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: Thank you for reviewing this request and updating the article. I have marked the request as answered. @Rusalkii: Thanks for the reply, too. I will continue my series of smaller requests for now. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History update continued

[edit]

Hello again. For my next request, I suggest replacing these sentences in the History section (all but the final sentence of the second paragraph):

With this updated text:

  • In 1896, Breyer's sons Fred and Henry opened the first manufacturing facility for Breyers ice cream, incorporated the company, and began using the briar leaf in the company logo.[2][3] The company opened its second facility in 1904 and became the first to use brine-cooled freezers the following year. By 1914, Breyers Ice Cream Company was selling one million gallons of ice cream annually. The company opened additional plants in Long Island City, New York, and Newark, New Jersey, in the 1920s and became a subsidiary of the National Dairy Products Corporation (NDPC) in 1926.[4] NDPC sold the brand to Kraft in 1952.[4] In 1969, Breyers became part of Kraftco, the precursor company to Kraft Foods, Inc., and began being sold in the southeastern United States; sales extended west of the Mississippi River in 1984.[2]

References

  1. ^ Ivey, Dave. "Ice Cream Factory Closing After 128 Years; 240 Jobs Melting Away". AP NEWS. Retrieved 2019-08-08.
  2. ^ a b Goff, H. Douglas; Hartel, Richard W. (2013). Ice Cream. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 12. ISBN 978-1-4614-6096-1. Retrieved July 25, 2024.
  3. ^ Riddle, Holly (February 2, 2023). "The Untold Truth Of Breyers". Mashed. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  4. ^ a b Ivey, Dave (September 5, 1995). "Ice cream factory closing after 128 years; 240 jobs melting away". Associated Press. Retrieved July 15, 2024.

This updated text corrects errors in unreferenced content, adds citations where needed, updates the existing AP citation to better reflect the source, and adds additional context related to Breyers' early years.

My goal is to make this content more complete and accurate. Again, you can view how this request relates to the overall draft I've saved here, if that's helpful or if you're interested in reviewing more of the proposed History section.

@Zefr and Rusalkii: Would either of you be interested in reviewing this request?

Thank you! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Zefr (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History request 3

[edit]

Hi editors, for next request, I suggest replacing the following sentence

  • Kraft sold its ice cream brands to Unilever in 1993, while retaining rights to the Breyers name for yogurt products.

With:

By 1986, Breyers was the best-selling ice cream brand in the United States. Its expansion into California was met with consumer confusion due to the similarity in name with Dreyer's, the most popular ice cream brand on the West Coast. Breyers' advertisements stressed that its name started with the letter "B" and noted differences in ingredients between the two products, including that Dreyer's used corn syrup and color additives while Breyers did not.[1] Breyers' carton branding had drawn many imitators, leading to a redesign in the 1980s to make its cartons black with images of the product.[2]
Unilever purchased Breyers ice cream in 1993 and merged it with Gold Bond and Good Humor ice cream to create the Good Humor-Breyers division. Kraft retained the rights to produce Breyers-branded yogurt.[3][4] Unilever closed its last Breyers plant in Philadelphia in 1995.[5] Good Humor-Breyers moved its headquarters from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Toronto and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, in 2007.[6]

References

  1. ^ Gellene, Denise (June 19, 1986). "East vs. West in Ice Cream Fight: Breyers' Attempt to Scoop Dreyer's Breeds Confusion". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  2. ^ "Firms put priority on packaging as product competition heats up". The Globe and Mail. Associated Press. January 16, 1987. Retrieved July 24, 2022.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goff was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Janofsky, Michael (September 9, 1993). "Unilever to Gain Breyers In Kraft Ice Cream Deal". The New York Times. Retrieved July 12, 2024.
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference AP1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ "Unilever to close Green Bay office". Milwaukee Business Journal. October 11, 2007. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  • Note: The missing links are named references (the Goff book and the AP article) already named in the live article.

Like the previous request, this expands on the information about Breyers' history (particularly in the 80s and 90s), adds additional sources, and generally makes the History section more complete. @Zefr: Would be willing to take a look at this one as well? Inkian Jason (talk) 00:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Zefr (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr: Thank you for reviewing! Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History request 4

[edit]

Hi editors, for my next request, I suggest adding the following to the end of the History section:

Unilever closed a Breyers production facility in Framingham, Massachusetts, in 2011.[1] A facility manufacturing Breyers-branded yogurt in North Lawrence, New York also closed that year.[2]
In 2015, Breyers stopped using milk from cows treated with the hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin and began using vanilla from Madagascar that had been certified as sustainably sourced by the Rainforest Alliance.[3]
Social media posts in the 2010s and early 2020s, as well as a New York Times column by Dan Barry,[4] circulated about some Breyers products being labeled "frozen dairy dessert" rather than ice cream, leading to questions about the ingredients in the products. The labeling difference was due to butterfat content in the products. Regulations in the United States and Canada require products with less than 10 percent butterfat to be labeled as frozen dairy dessert.[5][6]

References

  1. ^ Ameden, Danielle (April 1, 2011). "Breyers' Framingham facility closes its doors". MetroWest Daily News. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  2. ^ Flaherty, Nora (May 10, 2011). "North Lawrence Dairy closes: Workers, locals, farmers feel the effects". North Country Public Radio. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  3. ^ Murray, Rheana (February 12, 2015). "Breyers ice cream to stop using dairy from hormone-treated cows". The Today Show. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  4. ^ Barry, Dan (April 15, 2013). "Ice Cream's Identity Crisis". The New York Times. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  5. ^ Ibrahim, Nur (June 22, 2021). "Is Breyers Labeled 'Frozen Dessert' in Canada, Not Ice Cream?". Snopes. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  6. ^ Rascouët-Paz, Anna (May 24, 2024). "Breyer's Ice Cream Is Now Called 'Frozen Dessert' Because It's 50% Air?". Snopes. Retrieved July 15, 2024.

This brings the History section up to date and consolidates several pieces of historical information (like the closing of the Framingham plant and labeling of some products as frozen dairy dessert) with appropriate and complete sourcing, making the article more complete and accurate overall. @Zefr: Would this request be of interest, too? Inkian Jason (talk) 17:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inkian Jason - respectfully, these events seem relatively minor as WP:UNDUE and somewhat promotional. The Breyers website history doesn't feature these stories. Zefr (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: I would generally agree these are minor things. I was trying to keep the text as close as possible to the current article (with updated reliable sourcing) and then add new content related to the use of hormone-free milk and vanilla sourcing, which is covered by the history page you linked (the 2015 bullet on the timeline mentions it) as well as the ingredients pledge on the Breyers website. For the specific content proposed:
Extended content
  • The closure of the Framingham facility is discussed in the Breyers#Ice cream section, in the sentence: For several decades[when?] over 30% of Breyers products, including most of its products sold in the Northeastern U.S., were produced in a large plant outside Boston, in Framingham, Massachusetts. As part of cost-cutting by Unilever, the plant was closed in March 2011.
    • This sentence has a tag for being ambiguous and the reference link is dead.
    • My suggested update fixes the dead link, removes the ambiguity, and moves the closure into History, which I believe makes more sense.
    • I am perfectly fine with removing this from the request and would also suggest the content then be removed from the Ice cream section as well.
  • The discussion of ice cream vs. frozen dairy dessert I have proposed similarly seeks to address the remaining content in the Ice cream section.
    • The current Ice cream largely cites the Breyers website and a blog, contains original research not supported by the citations used, and has been tagged for ambiguity.
    • My version replaces poorly sourced content and original research with content verified by sourcing; however, I am also perfectly fine with removing this part of the request and would suggest that if this information is undue, the Ice cream section as a whole be removed.
  • Regarding the addition of the content on the use of hormone free milk and vanilla sourcing, I am also perfectly fine with removing that request if it is seen as promotional or undue.
Thank you for taking the time to look. I appreciate the close reading and feedback. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the Ice cream section can be deleted, and did so. Moved the Yogurt information - which is part of history - to the History section. Anything further? Zefr (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr: Thanks for doing that! I have marked the request as answered.
I have two larger requests and two smaller requests for the article.
The first smaller request involves updating the infobox to the following:
Extended content
Breyers
(omitted to avoid any issues with WP:NONFREE; image is Breyers Logo.png)
Product typeFrozen dessert
OwnerUnilever
CountryUnited States
Introduced1866; 158 years ago (1866)
Previous ownersKraft Foods Inc.
Websitebreyers.com
I have primarily added links and removed the Good Humor-Breyers ownership as that is a subbrand of Unilever.
The second smaller request is to slightly expand the introduction based on the information in the article:
Extended content

Breyers is an American ice cream brand created in 1866 by William Breyer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. By the 1920s, the brand was producing more than 1 million gallons annually. It was sold to the National Dairy Products Corporation in 1926 and again in 1993 to Unilever, which merged it with Good Humor to form the Good Humor-Breyers division. Breyers was noted for advertising its use of natural ingredients.

My first larger request involves removing the Breyers#Confusion_with_Dreyer's section. I'm proposing this for several reasons:
Extended content
  • The content is already largely covered by the third paragraph of the History section, as appropriate sourcing supports
  • The content is not appropriately sourced
    • Icecream.com, the first source, is not an RS
    • The sentences Henry Breyer founded Breyers in 1908 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, while William Dreyer and Joseph Edy co-founded Edy's Grand Ice Cream in 1928 in Oakland, California. The root of the confusion dates to 1953, when "Edy's Grand Ice Cream" was changed to "Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream". Seeking to eliminate the confusion this created, Dreyer's changed its brand name in the home market of Breyers from "Dreyer's Grand" back to "Edy's Grand" in 1981. are inaccurate and/or unsourced. The listed Forbes (found on LexisNexis) does not support the sentences. The entirety of Dreyer's/Breyers content from the article is in the box below
T. Gary Rogers, chairman of Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, has used a different approach -- pricing. Rogers has counted on steady increases in the prices for his confections to finance expansion from his Oakland, Calif. base into 19 western and midwestern states. ("It is frightening to take this to its logical conclusion but, up until this point, a price hike has never hurt us and often sales have picked up as a result," says Rogers.) His ice cream sells at retail about 25% higher than the typical name brand sold in the supermarket.
  • I have been unable to locate the Baltimore Business Journal article cited for the sentence Around that same time Breyers had begun an expansion toward the West Coast—the home market of Dreyer's—and by the mid-1980s was distributing ice cream throughout the western U.S. and Texas. but I believe this is also already covered by other appropriate sources in the History section
  • Tonally, I don't think the last sentence in the section is particularly encyclopedic and is generally unnecessary as it is already covered in the History section
Finally, I suggest the creation of a new section, titled Marketing campaigns with content on campaigns covered by appropriate sources. My proposed section is below.
Extended content

In 1989, Marine Midland Bank launched the Breyers Visa credit card aimed at families with young children. The cards launched simultaneously with the Children's Miracle Network Hospitals telethon that year, as well as advertisements in newspapers, People, and TV Guide. Breyers committed US$2 for every account opened during the campaign.[1] Bernadette Peters starred in a series of Breyers commercials in the 1990s.[2]

To coincide with a relaunch of its Cookies & Cream flavor with increased cookies in 2021, Breyers began offering "Cookie Coverage", a coupon to customers and an insurance certificate to allow claims for customers unsatisfied with the volume of cookies in their ice cream tubs. The campaign featured approval from the GEICO Gecko and was created in partnership with Edelman.[3][4][5] The brand resumed its partnership with Peters in 2024 to market its CarbSmart lower-calorie product line.[6][7] VML took over Breyers' marketing strategy the same year.[8]

References

  1. ^ Shoultz, Donald (May 18, 1989). "Visa Entry Is Hardly Plain Vanilla; Marine Midland's Breyers Card to Aid Children's Hospitals". American Banker.
  2. ^ Stressman, Emma (June 10, 2024). "Bernadette Peters on the joys of aging and her workout routine at 76". The Today Show. Retrieved July 26, 2024.
  3. ^ Faw, Larissa (June 28, 2021). "How Breyers Listened To Social Media Chatter for Product Inspiration". Agency Spy. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  4. ^ Harris, Molly; Barganier, Erich (June 28, 2021). "The Hilarious Way Breyers Is Responding To Critics Of Its Cookies And Cream Ice Cream". Mashed. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  5. ^ Bradley, Diane (June 28, 2021). "Breyers offers 'Cookie Coverage' to those unhappy with ice cream's cookie to cream raio". PR Week. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  6. ^ Tran, Diep (June 7, 2024). "Feel Good Friday: Broadway Goes Wild for Bernadette Peters' New Breyers Ad". Playbill. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  7. ^ Clements, Erin (June 4, 2024). "Bernadette Peters Teams with Breyers to Rethink Ice Cream as an Anti-Aging Product (Exclusive)". People. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
  8. ^ O'Brien, Kyle (December 13, 2023). "VML Wins Ice Cream Brand Breyers for Strategy and Creative". AdWeek. Retrieved July 15, 2024.
Please let me know what you think, and thank you for all your assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted the revised infobox as suggested. The Breyers script logo with the leaf (shown on breyers.com) could be used, but is not currently on Wikimedia Commons, so it would have to be uploaded and cleared for public use, if available.
I revised the lede and removed the Dreyer's section. Regarding a section on marketing campaigns, this impresses as unencyclopedic and too close to advertising, so I'll decline on that suggestion. Zefr (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help here, Zefr. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logo, propylene glycol

[edit]

@Zefr: I've uploaded the logo under fair use for the infobox. Would you be willing to add the image for me?

I was also wondering if you had any thoughts about the appropriateness of the recent content addition related to propylene glycol. The text reads like an attempt to inspire fear about a federally approved food additive. Propylene glycol has many uses beyond antifreeze and the specific concerns about its use in food have been discussed and pretty thoroughly dismissed (source 1, source 2). Also, the sources used for this I think are subpar. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer source is a reposting of an opinion piece by The Motley Fool, which is a private financial and investing advice company. The Motley Fool is not a reliable source and the main discussion about it on the reliable sources noticeboard indicates that it is at best of dubious reliability. The Zinczenko book also says propylene glycol is antifreeze, which is not accurate. Overall, this seems to be the same kind of content that was in the ice cream section you deleted as part of one of my earlier requests.

Should this also be removed? Thanks again for any help. Inkian Jason (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning recent removal made in response to request of Breyer/Unilever

[edit]

Hi, @Rusalkii:, I want to follow up with you about your comment from August. I personally share your concern and I felt what I've added back with your feedback taken into consideration addresses the prior concern. Since it's not sourced to some blog now, I don't think it should have been removed at the request of Uniliver. Please comment if you don't mind. Graywalls (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what suggestion is being made here. I'm taking a bit of a break from the edit request queue. Restoring that with better sourcing seems fine by me. Rusalkii (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide:, I see you've worked on the article within the past few months too. Do you have any thoughts? Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


@Zefr:, the change you made was made as a result of direct request made to you by the company. This particular content was previously discussed and another editor expressed concerns about removal of potentially negative info at the request of company. Since that sourcing issue has been addressed, this shouldn't have been removed at company request. It was properly sourced. "outdated" is not a reason for omission. Graywalls (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I question how an ingredient reported 10+ years ago is relevant now or even then as part of history. No version of the article says propylene glycol is a healthy additive, but there is no evidence the FDA stepped in to halt Breyers use of it in food manufacturing. It is, in fact, allowed (August 2024) under this US federal code (concentration dependent in food manufacturing, of course, as stated: "2.5 percent for frozen dairy products").
The talk page notice by Inkian Jason alerted me to this issue. I studied it, and edited the article based on my own evaluation. I consider the matter of a minor approved ingredient to be WP:UNDUE and WP:CHERRYPICK as an isolated form to raise criticism.
If you have more direct evidence and scientific sourcing under a WP:BMI source to indicate propylene glycol in the levels used is harmful and a change is warranted, you should present it here for other editors to evaluate, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr:, This isn't a medical article. If the presence of it has been covered in reputable sources, some mention is due and the decision to include/not include isn't held to the bar of WP:MEDRS. We're not talking about health effects. There is no such rule that information expires after a certain duration or recent information is favored. That's WP:RECENTISM. The concern initially raised was that it was sourced to some blog. Now that we have Seattle Post Intelligencer, it's worth at least a mention. Nowhere did it mention it was disallowed. Moreover, since their selling point is about naturalness, presence of approved, but non "natural" ingredients, with media coverage is not unreasonable. Graywalls (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, the issue has no WP:WEIGHT, either in the public or under review by the FDA. Zefr (talk) 17:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not NPOV when one side is given weight. Breyers' advertisements stressed that its name started with the letter "B" and noted differences in ingredients between the two products, including that Dreyer's used corn syrup and color additives while Breyers did not.. Why should this remain then? The Seattle PI might be repeating a blog, but a post that's been discussed in reliable media source is different from an editor directly citing a blog that's never been taken notice by a news outlet. I don't think there's any question about the validity of presence of Propylene glycol in Breyers products. What makes it note worthy is the company's brand emphasis on "natural". Graywalls (talk) 17:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the removed material in question, the book reference is a secondary source from Random House, a reputable mainstream book publisher, so should satisfy WP:WEIGHT. The other source appears to be Seattle Post Intelligencer reprinting a piece from The Motley Fool. The only pertinent RSN archive discussion I could find is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 329#The Motley Fool where community consensus seems to suggest that controversial info be omitted, or at best attributed. On a procedural note, I disagree with how the article's status quo version is the COI company representative's requested version. Left guide (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide:, I appreciate you providing input. I would just like to add that we would rarely cite a Twitter or Facebook post aside from a confirmed official account of a notable figure about their birth day, or number of kids and such thing. We also won't use things like Forum posts. However, every source originates as primary source. Many scholarly journals and newspapers base information from private interviews, however it's seldom just passing through whatever was said in verbatim unless it is churnalism like "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s" he said... she said... Johnson said. Therefore, a direct quotation to The Motley Fool would be undue, but when it has gained the attention of the Seattle PI, situation is changed. Anyways, this is my take on it. I am not sure why Unilever's liaison is saying "propylene glycol is antifreeze, which is not accurate". Mentioning a common application, as cited by a high quality source is reasonable. For example saying MSG, commonly found naturally in tomatoes if this reference is made in a reliable source. Also, Unilever's agent disputed about propylene glycol being antifreeze even though that characterization is made in a reliable source. There are also sources confirming PG's use as antifreeze https://books.google.com/books?id=mKw4AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA58 (5.6) https://books.google.com/books?id=L87djjnkVrsC&pg=PA61 https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/961027/ So it's no different than saying hydrochloric acid is stomach acid. Graywalls (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Graywalls - in reviewing the article and sources again, I don't see controversial information remaining or valid notable content omitted. I am just a copyeditor on this article, with no stake other than having edited content supported by sources.
What issues remain for you? Zefr (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While you don't see it, it is quite clear myself and other editors also see the issue with this article taking on the shape of corporate owner interest sided presentation. Graywalls (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr:, I also ask you to address why selectively including the lack of presence of FDA approved corn syrup and color additives in this brand that are present in competitors is due, which you added at the suggestion of the Unilever agent while completely omitting reliable source coverage about the presence of also FDA approved propylene glycol in Breyers products. Graywalls (talk) 17:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm under no influence by anyone. Is this point you make relevant and current for the ingredients in products by competitors and Breyers? "lack of presence of FDA approved corn syrup and color additives in this brand that are present in competitors is due" - that's gibberish - what is the WP:RS evidence for "lack of presence"? Your point is vague and outdated - the significance of this escapes me.
You seem to want to make a critical case about propylene glycol (PG) as an ingredient used by Breyers and most ice cream manufacturers more than a decade ago, and apparently is no longer an applicable issue.
If you want to offer a new draft that includes this FDA source showing PG as an approved common food additive in the American food supply since 1982, please write it here. Zefr (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that showcasing Breyers doesn't contain corn syrup or color additives, while a competitor product does, like Unilever wants it presented, but suppressing discussions of Breyers containing PG is UNDUE. If anything, the former should be omitted as well. As it stands, we have no consensus to include the former either. Graywalls (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The LA Times source was used to support the corn syrup-color additives statement, and is/was not "showcasing" because the propylene glycol issue hasn't existed in Breyers products for at least 10 years - it is WP:UNDUE, and was (still is) an FDA-approved ingredient at the time. This is a moot issue. You are shouting at windmills and should move on. Zefr (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr:, I object to retaining trivia about corn syrup and color additives. Along your own argument, these too, like PG are approved additives. I am not convinced we should retain LA Times sourced comment which was asked to be included by Unilever PR firm's rep on the absence of corn/syrup and color additive while removing presence of propylene glycol based on Random House sourcing. Graywalls (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why did you abruptly manually archive the talk page right in the middle of neutrality dispute when it's contextually relevant? Graywalls (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your motivation to revert the older talk page discussions seems to reflect an ardent desire to revive solved discussions and introduce controversy that doesn't exist.
Archiving was not abrupt at all. I specified topics from 2006-22 which have been resolved by consensus. That is what archiving serves to do, "to keep the size of the talk page at a manageable level". If a topic is still relevant, it can be revived with a more focused discussion and current, relevant sources.
What do you feel from 2006-22 topics are relevant now? If they exist as WP:DUE, restate them in a new section. Zefr (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation is not balanced. There's a current neutrality dispute occurring right now. This is an inappropriate timing to do something that lowers the visibility of discussion that is quite relevant. It should wait until the dust is fully settled. While you're right, this is an extremely inappropriate time to suddenly implement it. Graywalls (talk) 18:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024 class action suit

[edit]

Removal of this section is justified because the lawsuit is not final. There is an upcoming fairness hearing: On Nov. 21, the court will hold a fairness hearing to decide whether or not the settlement is reasonable. The court will consider any objections.

Unilever has not agreed to the claim of non-vanilla ingredients, and has made a defense that the ingredients are natural vanilla. Also, the amount of payment - if the penalty holds - is not finalized by the court. Addition to the article is warranted when the final court order is published. Zefr (talk) 17:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zefr:, as Left guide mentioned, I'm concerned the article is taking the shape of Unilever's desired presentation. This happens to be shortly following having been privately contacted by Unilever agent through your talk page. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significance to my receiving a contact on my talk page. I have been following this article out of my own interest for most of 2024, and am taking an objective view of the content, which - by the article size - is basically a stub unlikely to change much. There is little WP:RS-supported content with due weight to dispute or add from the past decade.
Your opposition and arguments are vague. I suggest you begin your objections again in the conventional sense of an edit request in a new section: "Change x to y" and provide a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 18:32, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a COI editor, so it's not as I am seeking your approval on something. Graywalls (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would not justify removal. Your argument is not consistent with wikipedia's policies and guidelines, remember you aren't allowed to engage in promotional activity even after disclosing. What you seem to be proposing here is promotion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Horse Eye's Back just to be clear, Zefr isn't the PR agent. They're the person that was contacted with a ping and talk page message by someone from a public relations firm representing Unilever (which owns Breyers brand). The nature of past requests from the public relation firm's rep looks to me of increasing flattering contents while pruning unflattering contents and in my opinion, the contents suggested violate the idea of NPOV. Graywalls (talk) 17:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am saying that a promotional edit does not become non-promotional when its Zefr making/requesting the edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed references

[edit]

User Graywalls has suggested the following references for consideration, as of 13 November 2024. This list was previously at the top of the talk page, causing WP:REFCLUTTER and a violation of WP:TALK layout, WP:TALKNEW.

  • Youtube, which is subject to the video's producer content preferences and contains ads, WP:YT, making it non-WP:RS and unusable.
  • Youtube, which is subject to the video's producer content preferences and contains ads, WP:YT, making it non-WP:RS and unusable.
Did you bother to look at WP:RSPYT? Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all. Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability. Graywalls (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to submit an edit request for YOUR approval like a COI/U. It was actually not appropriate that you were privately contacted by a COI/U, then implemented their change. I also disagree with the introduction of FDA.GOV source as YOU are making the decision to include this primary source, rather than the secondary source. Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one knows why you think these sources are usable. Keep it simple by proposing a change of x to y with the source to support why it's needed. Zefr (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look, it does not go that others must seek your consent, as you're implying by requesting "change x to y" while your own edits suggest you're bound to different standards. Users who aren't COI/U are not bound to this and it's absurd you're asking others to do this. It's clearly stated in WP:RSPYT that videos from news agencies are just as acceptable as the news itself in print/web form. As it stands, the sources you newly introduced, without adhering to your own suggestion of "propose x and y" does not have consensus. Graywalls (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added sourced content to the article. if you disagree with it, the place to discuss it is in a new talk page section.
This discussion is not about why we should or should not use your proposed outdated sources, which is the purpose of this talk page section. Zefr (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me get this right. When others revert you, it's an "edit war" and you tag them for it, but when YOU do it, it's something else? Sequential edits counts as an edit. Your editing pattern clearly suggests you think your preferred version takes precedence. I suggest the correct thing to do is to revert to the version before you implemented the suggestion by public relations rep, which other editors in talk page was not in favor of either. Graywalls (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My version is objective, and referenced to reliable sources. That's what an encyclopedia does. If other editors disagree, the article can be edited with better sources, and the place to discuss it is here. Zefr (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather inappropriate that you, a participant in what you claim "edit war" is going around tagging warnings. That's rather self-righteous. You're not the arbiter of what' encyclopedic or not. Read other participants' comment as well. Your preferred version don't have clear consensus. Please restore the version prior to your implementation that was made at Unilever's request. Graywalls (talk) 20:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should read WP:CON and propose constructive edits to the article supported by reliable sources. "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural process. After one changes a page, others who read it can choose whether or not to further edit. When editors do not reach agreement by editing, discussion on the associated talk pages continues the process toward consensus."
Consensus may take time and discussion among several editors, not just you. Meanwhile, you seem heavily invested in disparaging Breyers, as the above topics illustrate. Some time away from the article may be useful, WP:DROPTHESTICK. Zefr (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:BRD, I suggest reverting to this version aside from the logo and perhaps have other editors implement the change. Rather than revert again, I tagged as paid contents, because despite the slight re-wording, the highly advertise-y contents like "To produce its vanilla flavors, Breyers uses 100% sustainably-sourced vanilla beans from Madagascar in a partnership with the Rainforest Alliance." which comes from Mashed as "according to Delish, UNILEVER says..." seems to have been done essentially at the behest of Unilever Corporation's PR firm's rep. My suggestion at this point is we revert to the version prior to the most recent involvement by the Unilever PR representative, and have Unilever's request go through the edit request system and be implemented by neither myself nor Zefr. Graywalls (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While not directly relevant to the topic under discussion here, I feel it may be useful background to be aware that the COI editor involved here (Inkian Jason) has a history of introducing poor sources to replace good sources with the justification that the poor sources were "more recent" and "stronger". For further detail see discussion here [1].
Evidently such opinions are exceptionally worrying in COI editors, especially when they are trying to install slanted versions of events at the behest of their corporate paymasters.
The user's direct approach to a non-conflicted editor, mentioned above, was part of an inappropriate pattern of behaviour. Inkian Jason's edit history indicated that they had contacted Zefr on several occasions to ask for help with edit requests, and then once Zefr had proved generally amenable the COI user raised the propylene glycol issue again which another user has previously turned down.
I make no negative comment in relation to Zefr's role in all of this - but the way in which Inkian Jason appears to have gone about locating and cultivating an amenable unconflicted editor strikes me as highly unethical. Axad12 (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The PR rep did have a reasonable concern about direct reliance on a website called adailyscoop, but I think my edit addressed it while considering concerns also raised by Rusalkii about removing potentially negative contents at the behest of a public relations firm engaged by a mega corporation. I think simply rolling back to the version prior to the most recent PR firm engagement, then putting their request back into edit request queue to be done by a random editor (other than Zefr, as the way they've already been engaged by cherry picking) would provide some fairness. Graywalls (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I frequently work from that queue but will give any such further request a wide berth. There are a relatively small number of users who work on COI edit requests, but an independent view from any one of them would be very welcome here, as you say. Axad12 (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a subsidiary point, I have noticed that employees of the larger COI wiki-editing firms will often make a COI edit request and then an hour or so later place a notice at a relevant wiki-project talk page. (The COI editor involved here can be observed to have used this practice in their edit history).
The COI edit request queue is fairly short and it is reasonable to expect requests to be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe, such approaches are thus unneccessary. The reason that COI editors canvass for assistance in the fashion outlined seems to me perfectly obvious - to avoid the scrutiny that would be expected from editors who routinely deal with COI edit requests.
I recently saw an example of this where a COI editor who worked for a cigarette company (and who had a history of dodgy COI requests) canvassed a project member in an attempt to implement a complex edit request involving, amongst other things, the removal of adverse health information. I had previously turned down the request as being highly inappropriate, only to later be confronted by an apparently non-conflicted but canvassed project member who took the opposite view.
It is also fairly common practice for COI editors to ping users who they have previously found useful in dealing with COI edit requests. While there is nothing fundamentally unethical in that practice it is very easy to see how it might be used as a canvassing technique when other editors working from the same queue had previously been found to be less amenable.
Thus, when COI editors have previously had requests on an article declined or only partly done, I agree it would be best to wait for a random user to deal rather than for the COI editor to attempt to game the system. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

perceived assertion of editing rights ownership

[edit]

Following Zefr's complaint WP:REFCLUTTER and a violation of WP:TALK layout, WP:TALKNEW, I asked Template_talk:Refideas and I was told by an uninvolved editor my use of {{ref ideas}} was mostly proper, although instead of using separate templates, it should have been done as {{refideas |1=, |2= |3=...}} and placed at the very top. Along with expectation like I, as a non-cOI editor being told to submit to Zefr proposal in "make change x to y" the same way COI editors are advised to do, I'm feeling like Zefr is asserting WP:OWN to this article. Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Breyers&oldid=1257514610"