Talk:Breyers

Unsourced list of ingredients in ice cream section

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)

 Removed Left guide (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. Inkian Jason (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Request to remove poorly sourced content

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)

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)

@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)

History update

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

• In 1866, William A. Breyer began to produce and sell iced cream in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, first from his home, and later via horse and wagon on the streets.

References

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. By the time of his death in 1882, he had opened six shops in Philadelphia while still manufacturing the ice cream in his home.

References

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)

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)

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)

@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)

History update continued

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

• Breyer's son Henry incorporated the business in 1908. The formerly independent Breyer Ice Cream Company was sold to the National Dairy Products Corporation/Sealtest in 1926. National Dairy then changed its name to Kraftco in 1968, and Kraft by 1975.

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. 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. NDPC sold the brand to Kraft in 1952. 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.

References

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)

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

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

History request 3

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. Breyers' carton branding had drawn many imitators, leading to a redesign in the 1980s to make its cartons black with images of the product.

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. Unilever closed its last Breyers plant in Philadelphia in 1995. Good Humor-Breyers moved its headquarters from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Toronto and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, in 2007.

References

• 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)

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

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

History request 4

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. A facility manufacturing Breyers-branded yogurt in North Lawrence, New York also closed that year.

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.

Social media posts in the 2010s and early 2020s, as well as a New York Times column by Dan Barry, 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.

References

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)

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)

@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 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)

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)

@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 type Frozen dessert Owner Unilever Country United States Introduced 1866 (1866) Previous owners Kraft Foods Inc. Website breyers.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. Bernadette Peters starred in a series of Breyers commercials in the 1990s. 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. The brand resumed its partnership with Peters in 2024 to market its CarbSmart lower-calorie product line. VML took over Breyers' marketing strategy the same year. References

Please let me know what you think, and thank you for all your assistance. Inkian Jason (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for all your help here, Zefr. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Logo, propylene glycol

@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)

 Done, thanks. Zefr (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

For health reasons I think it was a concerning removal too. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FYI, NutmegCoffeeTea, the above discussion was about archiving 2006-22 topics to Talk:Breyers/Archive 1 where there is no mention of propylene glycol (PG) or health problems with people using Breyers products.

Your edit here is misleading because

a) it suggests PG is dangerous to consume (probably yes when in high concentrations), but the FDA has evaluated and approved it as a safe food additive now and since 1982 when used in small amounts, according to this federal code; it is used in thousands of manufactured foods;

This is the US gold standard position on PG safety by the CDC, with a quote from the World Health Organization: "... the acceptable dietary intake of propylene glycol is 25 mg for every kilogram (kg) of body weight." That is, for a woman weighing 57 kg (126 lb), a safe level of consumed PG would be 1,425 mg (1.425 g (0.0503 oz) which seems an unlikely level to encounter in a typical diet each day, and certainly much more than would be present in an ice cream dessert.

b) the SPI source is from 2014, not now. At some time over the past decade, Breyers stopped using PG. The current products, such as a Carb Smart fudge bar product here can be viewed for its ingredients (click on the product, then on the 'Ingredients' box) where PG is not listed. A more concerning ingredient for health is palm oil which is high in saturated fat. Zefr (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

October 2024 class action suit

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)

@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 personally contacted by Unilever agent through your talk page. Graywalls (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Proposed references

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.

• Ice Cream’s Identity Crisis, New York Times, August 2013. This source is nearly 12 years out of date, serving no additional purpose beyond similar sources from the same period. if Graywalls disagrees, propose a change in a conventional edit request of "change x to y" using this source.

• 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.

• 2013-18 opinion article, out of date, serving no additional purpose beyond similar sources from the same period. if Graywalls disagrees, propose a change in a conventional edit request of "change x to y" using this source. Zefr (talk) 19:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi @Axad12:, with that, would you be wiling to get the article back to the pre-dispute state, as you see fit? at this present moment, I'd rather not be the one to directly do so, but if I allow it to sit too long, I'm concerned some might see it as consensus by relative stability. The place in timeline I suggested was this which is a step before any of the recent found of public relations edit request. Graywalls (talk) 11:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done. Axad12 (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, I make no negative comment in relation to Zefr's role in all of this I really appreciate that and hope others think/do the same too.

- but the way in which Inkian Jason appears to have gone about locating and cultivating an amenable unconflicted editor strikes me as highly unethical I think it’s quite normal for people to contact another person if the one you contacted previously had declined your request. Would you be contacting the same person again and again and again, after they turned you down (again and again and again)? I don’t think contacting another person is “highly unethical” .. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The pattern of behaviour outlined above in relation to this declared COI editor is certainly highly inappropriate. It is perfectly clear that having had a COI edit request partially turned down he cultivated an amenable project member, got them to approve several edit requests and then re-introduced the previously declined issue.

I have already outlined above in considerable detail the nature of the behaviour, why it was not simply a case of contacting another person and why it was inappropriate. There are at least 2 other editors who agree with me on that score. Frankly if you cannot see the issues here then you are being exceptionally naive.

I repeat, all that has been suggested is that the declared COI editor makes his requests again, to be viewed by a random volunteer working from the COI edit request queue. Axad12 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m glad that you changed your wordings from “highly unethical “ to “highly inappropriate”. I’m not happy to be described as “exceptionally naive”. Again, can we focus on content but not commenting on other editors, please?

PS FYI I think Zefr already is a random volunteer, and I'm yet another.

--Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Clearly he was not random, as he was repeatedly asked to deal with the COI edit requests in question by the COI editor. That is the whole point of what is being discussed here.

Evidently you were not exceptionally naive but simply had not looked into the history of what was going on here. Axad12 (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Glad to know that I’m not “exceptionally naive”. Well, perhaps “naive” can also be a complement?

To be frank, I don’t have any interest in this content dispute. It’s just an ice cream brand that I’ve never tried. I’m here just because I feel the need to hide the inappropriate comments. As long as people can focus on content and not commenting on editors (who hold different views), I’m more than happy to leave the content disputes to you guys, although I still don’t think a wholesale removal of cited text is appropriate (per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM and WP:CANTFIX). --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

perceived assertion of editing rights ownership

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)

@Zefr:, in Wikipedia:CHANGEXY, you cited, the edit request is a guideline for Edit requests are used to request edits to a page when the requesting editor cannot or should not make those changes themselves. and your interpretation that you NOT knowing why I want/don't want certain things isn't a good reason. Expecting others to submit to you suggests you're exhibiting ownership to this article. I don't have a COI with this article subject. It isn't your place to arbiter who should/shouldn't edit this article on the bases of your understanding or lack of understanding for why someone wants/doesn't want to introduce/remove contents. The version I suggested this article being rolled back to is the version prior to dispute starting and I suggested to Axad12 to put it back to that version if they agree. My suggestion is trying to follow good practices in WP:QUO, which is to avoid moving away from status quo, during the duration of dispute. Graywalls (talk) 04:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr:, why is it that you axed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcCsHkwvqy8 as no, can't use, contains ads, disregarding WP:RSPYT, then try to source significant amount of contents from a written story from the very same publisher that also contain ads? That certain sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Graywalls (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Selective video editing per WP:PRIMARY and WP:YT, with a right column full of ads. What useful information does it contain about Breyers that would go into the article? Zefr (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see the written version at the point but you're entirely dismissing that YouTube videos from official news outlets are considered reliable . So Mashed in video forms are just as acceptable as printed form. Graywalls (talk) 08:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Structure

Following MOS:SO and MOS:HEAD, this stub article had appropriate balance and structure in this version, which was open to further editing with current reliable sources.

The accusation of COI toward user Inkian Jason is unfounded, as the editor declared a conflict, followed the correct procedures for making a COI edit request (WP:COIE), and offered simple historical text with sources, which I reviewed objectively and accepted per WP:COIRESPONSE.

If there are specific complaints about the content or sources used in the revision, they can be assessed and discussed, rather than blindly reverted.

Let's review the structure.

Lead

The lead is factual, simple, and sourced per MOS:LEAD. More should be added to differentiate the products between ice cream and frozen dairy dessert (presented again below as 'Products').

---

Breyers is an American frozen dessert and ice cream brand. Created in 1866 by William Breyer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Breyers is the oldest company selling ice cream nationally in the United States.

By the 1920s, the brand was producing more than one 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.

History

This is the main section of Inkian Jason's request. Per WP:COIE, the edit requests were clear, have historical WP:WEIGHT, did not contain unnecessary detail or non-neutral language, and gave independent sources, which I reviewed and found acceptable.

This section is stated clearly, neutrally, and is adequately sourced.

If there are objections, state why and give a source from within recent years that refutes or clarifies why.

---

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. By the time of his death in 1882, he had opened six shops in Philadelphia while still manufacturing the ice cream in his home.

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. 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. NDPC sold the brand to Kraft in 1952. In 1969, Breyers became part of Kraftco – the precursor company to Kraft Foods, Inc. – with sales first in the southeastern United States, later extending west of the Mississippi River in 1984.

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 of the United States. Breyers' carton branding had drawn many imitators, leading to a redesign in the 1980s to make its cartons black with images of the product.

Unilever

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. Unilever closed its last Breyers plant in Philadelphia in 1995. In 2007, Good Humor-Breyers moved its headquarters from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to Toronto and Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Breyers Yogurt was manufactured under license from Unilever at an upstate New York facility until the licensing agreement was terminated and the Breyers Yogurt line was discontinued in April 2011. Catterton continued to produce YoCrunch yogurt but without the Breyers co-branding until it sold the company in August 2013 to Group Danone.

Products

This section is up to date (2023), clarifies the current product differentiation between the two main categories, and uses reliable sources. It does not use the ingredient lists from Breyers 2024 products section here for each product, under 'View Nutrition and Ingredients' per Smart Label which I intentionally omitted (but on second thought, it could be used to state the actual ingredients in current products).

The Daily Scoop source about product formulation left in the current article is an unusable blog from 18 years ago, i.e., hardly a WP:RS source and useless for the encyclopedia.

---

Breyers manufactures two types of frozen dessert: "original ice cream" and "frozen dairy dessert", both in numerous variations of composition, flavor, and consumer preference. Some 60% of Breyers products are ice cream and 40% are frozen dairy dessert.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ingredient requirements for frozen dessert products are defined in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, subchapter B. As detailed in Part 135.110, Breyers original ice cream products adhere to the necessary FDA manufacturing requirements for the contents of milk fat and total milk solids not being less than 10% for each component.

Breyers frozen dairy dessert products are manufactured specifically to be different from the original ice cream products to provide a smoother texture. Despite the ingredient differentiation between dessert products since 2013, some American consumers have been confused by the qualities of a frozen dairy dessert when expecting the original Breyers ice cream.

Ice cream

Breyers ice cream products are made from milk, cream, sugar, tara gum, and flavors derived from natural sources, such as vanilla. Breyers provides dozens of ice cream dessert varieties and flavors for specialty diets, such as dairy-free, gluten-free, sugar-free, vegan, and low-carbohydrate ice cream products.

As an example of the composition of Breyers ice cream, the sugar-free vanilla ice cream is 68% water, 22% carbohydrates, 6% fat, and 4% protein. In a reference amount of 100 g (3.5 oz), the Breyers sugar-free ice cream provides 143 calories of food energy.

Previously, Breyers produced other specialty diet ice creams, including non-GMO and lactose-free variations.

Vanilla is the best-selling brand of Breyers ice cream, and Breyers sells more vanilla ice cream than competitors in the United States. To produce its vanilla flavors, Breyers uses 100% sustainably-sourced vanilla beans from Madagascar in a partnership with the Rainforest Alliance.

Frozen dairy dessert

Breyers frozen dairy desserts are manufactured with skim milk, corn syrup (or maltitol syrup), sugar or a sugar substitute, polydextrose, glycerin, and various other ingredients that may include whey, carob bean gum, guar gum, carrageenan, and added micronutrients (label image).

As an example of composition in a Breyers frozen dairy dessert, the product Birthday Blast is 38% carbohydrates, 7% fat, and 4% protein. In a reference amount of 100 g (3.5 oz), the Breyers Birthday Blast frozen dairy dessert provides 228 calories of food energy.

References

Graywalls prefers this description of ice cream (outdated by 12-15 years) which is more than a decade out of date, and does not differentiate ice cream ingredients from those in a separate category - frozen dairy desserts, as shown in the 2024 Breyers products and ingredients.

and objected to

1) the use of the FDA-CFR source which defines ice cream ingredients. It is an applicable source for showing US requirements of manufacturing and is described in an independent source (Demas ref);

2) the USDA FoodData Central sources supporting ice cream and frozen dessert constituents and calorie contents which are defined in the most used nutrition database on Wikipedia applied for food articles;

3) vanilla certification, which is widely known and has existed for Breyers since 2016. It's not clear why this isn't acceptable as a simple fact also sourced to Riddle.

---

In summary, the reverted version here is more than a decade out of date, supported by blogs, and is misleading about the current status of products. It does not serve the encyclopedia well for an article about an established company and its 2024 products.

It's possible a short criticism subsection could be added to History, but companies and products evolve to meet market interests, so I would classify such criticism as irrelevant and WP:UNDUE for the current description of the company and its products. Zefr (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC) (3:15 pm, Yesterday (UTC−8)

Commerce

Little information about the global or regional market performance of Breyers is available because its finances are folded within the Unilever ice cream business group, which has a global perspective in Unilever annual reports. Such reports are investor relations documents which do not make good sources for the encyclopedia, as they are too tedious for common users to read.

This 2022 Unilever page outlines the ice cream group, but only mentions Breyers as one of 7 major brands, i.e., there's not much to use for the article to specify the marketplace for Breyers.

An industry financial report like Statista provides a glimpse of Breyers 2023 sales and rank - $546 million, 4th among major American ice cream brands - but this source is controversial on Wikipedia and not usable.

For the Commerce section, this assessment leaves us with a) a statement about Breyers within the Unilever ice cream group, b) a report like the 2022 Dairy Foods analysis (from a market research firm) showing Breyers with sales of $498 million, and c) news that Breyers and the ice cream group will be spun out of Unilever by the end of 2025. Zefr (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Revisions by section

We are here to build an encyclopedia, so let's follow WP:5P and WP:MOS, and not dismiss facts with reliable sources provided in good faith. Zefr (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Lead

For an article about a company making frozen desserts, there are examples to follow for structure, including Ben & Jerry's (like Breyers, a Unilever company), Magnum (also a Unilever company), Häagen-Dazs, Dreyer's, and many other ice cream manufacturers.

Following these examples and MOS:LEAD, the main points about Breyers are below (no particular order of stating facts), meanwhile suggesting informative sections:

1. history
2. ownership
3. market
4. products
5. social issues/controversies

This has been applied to the lead with this edit. "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Zefr (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The writing style like "In 2013, Breyers introduced frozen desserts made with food additives that were intended to create smooth, low-calorie products. However, the new desserts evoked complaints by consumers who were accustomed to the traditional "all-natural" Breyers ice cream." has a marketing double speak tone to it. I don't think it's necessary to introduce Unilever focused sister brands. Graywalls (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Too vague to understand or adjust the text in the edit, although I will rework the lead with a new edit. You might try constructively editing with up to date sources I may have missed rather than persistently complaining. Zefr (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

With this revision, main points of the article were added to the lead. By MOS:LEAD, sources are not required here, but the statements should be consistent with those used in the main sections. I added the Unilever and Breyers corporate sources to clarify the Unilever ice cream business group and Breyers history. Zefr (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Products

The prior version containing a section on products was a good faith edit with new sources to accurately represent the status of ingredients and product development. There are no discussions on the talk page to oppose such descriptions, which would be illogical opposition when the article is about a food products company.

Accordingly, to replace the 'Ice cream' section (which has no sources less than 11 years old other than those from the Breyers product website, I have inserted this good faith edit with an invitation to edit constructively with better sources, if available. Zefr (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr:, FDA site is a primary source. Even though the information maybe reliable, adding commentary about propylene glycol wasn't taken note by a source in relation to ice cream and this is undue. If a reliable secondary source looks at this source, then comments on it, we can have a case for inclusion. With each edit, it seems to be gravitating towards where dispute started. Graywalls (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest removal of anything referring to propylene glycol because it's a 10+ year old issue no longer applicable in the manufacturing of Breyers products. You and NutmegCoffee put it in the article. Feel free to delete the 2nd paragraph from this section. Zefr (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact they put it back, and the several comments in discussion leading up to our dispute maybe an indication that it should be included. The reference to glycol was made in context of ice cream by a reliable source. I didn't go look for another source saying propylene glycol is used in antifreeze in order to advance my position. You brought in FDA and I think that's stitching sources together to say what you want to say. Graywalls (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

We can't mention propylene glycol without the context that it is a safe common GRAS ingredient when used in mg additive amounts as regulated (probably by many ice cream manufacturers decades ago), and that leads to citing the US CFR regulatory document. The European Food Safety Authority has investigated it thoroughly, publishing a 2018 conclusion of food safety.

Then how do we use a Seattle PI reprint of the 2014 2014 Motley Fool article? The author chose to compose an eye-catching title and article that have misled consumers into thinking Breyers products are made with antifreeze. This misinformation shouldn't be perpetuated in the encyclopedia.

As propylene glycol is not used in any Breyers products, the story has undue WP:WEIGHT and is too offtopic to use. Zefr (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Deleted in this revision. The Motley Fool was in 2014 and still is a stock analysis website, i.e., not an expert and not a WP:RS for ice cream manufacturing. Such an article was used to sensationalize a non-issue of ice cream manufacturing in 2014, and has long been inapplicable to Breyers products. Zefr (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Since it's reported in a reliable source I think the propylene glycol incident should be included and shouldn't be whitewashed or removed, or the article risks losing it's neutrality. I also don't think synth should be done to declare that it's "safe" since quantity, methodology, critiera, other contextual factors probably play a large role, unless there are reliable sources interpreting that all and talking about its safety. The PI source says it is safe up to 50 grams per kilogram so maybe that can be mentioned but other details shouldn't be removed. If people want to know more specifics about it they can always click through to the wiki article for it. NutmegCoffeeTea (she/her) (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

NutmegCoffeeTea - you reverted a whole-article edit to preserve a controversy that does not have a reliable source.

Please be more careful, as your edit here does not bring us to a more complete article with accurate content and sources in the designated sections. I have started talk topics for each section of the article to allow debate, discussion, and decisions section by section. If you have objections about the content and sources in individual article sections, please address them first in the respective talk section.

1. You have misinterpreted the Seattle PI reference. It is not an article by Seattle PI, but rather is the entire reprint of a Motley Fool article (see under the title), which is not a WP:RS source for ice cream manufacturing. See some comments about the reliability of the Motley Fool on the RS Noticeboard Archive here. Summarizing, the SPI is not the source, and the Motley Fool is not a reliable source.

2. The "PI source" has an important error: "safe up to 50 grams per kilogram" (think about that - a 56 kg woman would be able to safely consume 2.6 kg of propylene glycol per day!?) should be 25 mg/kg per day, as established by EFSA and WHO.

3. Please explain why a 2014 source would be relevant to an ice cream manufacturing practice in 2024. If you have a source from within the past 5 years that says Breyers uses propylene glycol to make ice cream, provide it here for other editors to evaluate.

4. Please explain what you mean by "I also don't think synth should be done to declare that it's "safe" since quantity, methodology, critiera, other contextual factors probably play a large role". Propylene glycol is regulated by amount and use as a safe food ingredient in Europe, the US, and Canada. We can't leave an "antifreeze" comment hanging in the air without giving evidence of its safety published by national regulatory agencies.

5. Despite the clarity of international food safety regulations, this topic apparently needs further discussion here in this conversation. While others join in, I'll re-establish the propylene glycol information covered in this version. Zefr (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with NetMegCoffeeTea here we shouldn't extrapolate personal points using different sources. Antifreeze reference was made by a RELIABLE source along side ICE CREAM. This is different from an editor taking a source about chlorine as disinfectant in a resort pool, another source about chlorine being a chemical warfare, or just being a component of table salt we need in our diet, then trying to downplay or play up something using permissible exposure data from a (dot government domain of your choice) to appease the chlorination critic, or to appease public relations department for the resort. Doing such a thing is trying to illustrate something not supported by any one source to say what YOU want to say. Graywalls (talk) 00:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on improving the article

FYI, Graywalls: proposing an edit request with a good source follows WP:CHANGEXY. No one here knows why you don't want current information about Breyers in the article. So propose your content following the edit request guide.

Lastly, this:

Hi @Axad12:, with that, would you be wiling to get the article back to the pre-dispute state, as you see fit? at this present moment, I'd rather not be the one to directly do so, but if I allow it to sit too long, I'm concerned some might see it as consensus by relative stability. The place in timeline I suggested was this which is a step before any of the recent found of public relations edit request. Graywalls (talk) 3:48 am, Today (UTC−8)
Agreed, and Done. Axad12 (talk) 4:27 am, Today (UTC−8)

I point out that the exchange above is canvassing and WP:VOTESTACKING where none of the pertinent and current issues of lead, history, products, and ingredients were addressed by either participant, but merely were reverted because Graywalls solicited a like opinion from Axad12 about valid edit requests. Zefr (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

How can it possibly be canvassing or votestacking for one user to discuss something with another user who is already present in the discussion?

The reality is simply that 2 independent users disagree with your version of events and with the way in which the declared COI user cultivated you to do their bidding on this article.

Trying to misrepresent a WP:CONSENSUS against you as canvassing/votestacking is surely the ultimate unsubstantiated allegation of bad faith. Axad12 (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Conspicuously false, Axad12. Two reverting editors - you and Graywalls - who have not contributed anything new to the article, do not make a consensus; caution about WP:CAMP. I was not "cultivated", as I had already edited the article in September and October - check the history. Inkian Jason contacted me on November 7. The contact wasn't needed, as I had responded on the talk page numerous times. Not you or anyone else disputed these responses with specific objections and recommended improvements on the talk page. Zefr (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

The point that I made directly above was that it was your allegation that I was canvassed that was conspicuously false.

The suggestion that you were cultivated relates not to the contact on Nov 7th, but to the earlier contacts from Inkian Jason to yourself on 16th Sept [2], 8th Oct [3] and 14th Oct [4].

You were cultivated, as is plain to see, and any suggestion to the contrary is also conspicuously false. Axad12 (talk) 06:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Ridiculous accusation. By your definition, anyone responding to an edit request would be "cultivated". Zefr (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Your presence to address those requests was repeatedly requested, and eventually it was requested to overturn a previous decline re: the removal of adverse info. That is a million miles away from the circumstances under which most COI edit requests are responded to by random volunteers.

At least 2 other users agree with me about this. The fact that you cannot see it yourself is rather sad, but it is ultimately irrelevant. Axad12 (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

You are basing your argument on the issue of a WP:COIE editor making fair edit requests on the history of Breyers, for which only you and Graywalls are the supposed "consensus" opponents.

The lead change you reverted has nothing to do with Inkian Jason's edit requests. You deleted neutral facts supported by WP:V in violation of MOS:INTRO.

Without engaging in the talk page discussion I offered about the content and sources added to the article, you are making no attempt to improve the article, but rather have chosen the path of automatically reverting because you are collaborating with Graywalls and you both give the appearance of suppressing an objective article. Get to work and make constructive edits to bring the article up to date. Zefr (talk) 06:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Your position is nonsensical.

Neither myself, nor Graywalls, nor the other 2 editors named directly below need to constructively improve the article. Those users simply oppose the addition of COI material that you added while the unwitting dupe of Unilever. The addition of material requires a consensus, which you do not have. Stop trying to quote chapter and verse when (a) the chapter and verse is not on your side and (b) you have already blatantly lied in relation to the pre-November contact between yourself and Inkian Jason.

You are clearly in the minority here, but given that you are a recidivist edit warrior I suppose that means very little to you - such is your apparent disregard for the views of all users other than yourself. Axad12 (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Furthermore, allegations such as that I was canvassed and that tagteaming and WP:TDLI are in play are straight out of the Steve Bannon 'flood the zone with...' playbook.

You cannot just idly throw around all kinds of BS allegations while simultaneously claiming that you are the only one trying to engage in constructive discussion. Axad12 (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

@Zefr:, Earlier on, you were accusing me of 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.. This is a failure to WP:AGF. So you're talking about bringing it up to date, but it was you who took out the class action thing. Another thing of interest is you introduced rather advertisey fluff like "100% sustainable vanilla that is Rainforest Alliance Certified", for whatever vanilla that maybe present. That was part of Unilever Corporation's request. You conveniently left out non-vanilla bean based vanilla flavor being present (which appears to be the basis of the current class action) and you also left out their use of non-sustainable raspberry. Graywalls (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The article was incomplete and 12+ years out of date, so needs good faith editing and reconstruction, which is underway. Your constructive edits are certainly welcome.

The class action case isn't final, as previously discussed and sourced above under October 2024 class action suit. The court hasn't heard the defense arguments, and the penalty amount isn't determined until a hearing on Nov 21. The final court decision will be published, and can be added to the article then as an established fact.

The vanilla certificate is documented independently by the Rainforest Alliance, which other companies could seek, if motivated. As it's a fact with a source, I don't see the problem with it. Others can give their opinions. Zefr (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

So, concentrating and emphasizing flattering aspects, then accuse others of being heavily invested in "disparaging" for adding something that is properly sourced, but not something desired by the company. The company should have minimal say over what goes on and what doesn't. Graywalls (talk) 08:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Note concern by Left guide about implemented final version at one point having been the Unilever Corporation's preferred version despite lack of consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Left_guide-20241108222500-Graywalls-20241108165500

Note concern by Rusalkii about removal of potential negative information at the behest of Unilever Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Breyers#c-Rusalkii-20240814014600-Inkian_Jason-20240801145900 Graywalls (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

My concern about your introduction of primary source FDA documents is that you're introducing your own editorial emphasis. Anyone can go find a law about anything. For example if a news article says a politician was cited for having marijuana, an editor then locating and citing those statutory law and discussing it in depth from various .gov sites and detailing maximum jail terms and fines is editorial bias. It was not a reliable secondary source discussing the situation that chose to introduce this material. My discussion of the definition of ice cream was limited to what was expressed in the news source.

I also disagree with your applying the WP:BMI, which is not the appropriate guideline for this article in the context of information. In WP:AGE MATTERS, more recent info is often preferred for medicine articles, which this is not. Breyers, which was known for decades for "all natural" having made a major reformulation in 2013 is a noteworthy milestone and is hardly irrelevant. Also, the introduction of contents like sustainably grown whatever alliance recognized ingredient is an advertisy baloney. Graywalls (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I was thanked (for my edit resetting the article) by a user other than Graywalls, so that makes 3 users in favour of the reset to a position prior to the edits resulting from COI edit requests.

Zefr, I think you just have to accept that you were on the wrong side of the consensus and move on. We've all been there from time to time... Axad12 (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like a very innovative way of interpreting consensus. FYI, I’ve just thanked Zefr for his edit as an effort to help answering the edit requests from a COI editor and to help making our article more neutral. I'm not saying that his effort is perfect, but I think AGF *is* important and a wholesale removal of good-faith unconflicted edit is inappropriate.

IMO, Breyers shouldn’t spend/waste their money to hire people to make edit requests on Wikipedia. They should spend their money to do something like this instead. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 16:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Given the relatively limited footfall at COI edit requests, 3-1 was, as I stated at the time, a consensus.

What has been suggested above is that the COI editor makes their requests again, to be viewed by a random volunteer working from the COI edit request queue, rather than a project member who has been identified by the COI editor as someone more amenable to their purposes than the user who originally turned down a specific previous request.

I really don't see how anyone can reasonably dispute that that is a fair way forward. Axad12 (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Axad12, what I mean is, I’ve never heard that WP:Thanks to an edit can be used s a base / claim of consensus. I don’t think we have any policy that documents that either. Aside, if there were really four people engaged in a discussion, the results can only be 2:2 or 1:3 (with no one abstain), which means only one person changing his/her mind will give a very different result. I don’t think that “consensus” is really that clear. Lastly, IMO we resolve conflicts / disagreements by discussions, communications, understanding, mutual respect, persuasion, and sometimes concessions. I don’t think claiming “consensus” to force others to submit is a good example of collaborative editing .. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

In fairness, all that you have suggested as an alternative to what others have suggested here is that the subject company embark on legal action.

That being the case, I hardly see that there is any reasonable on-wiki alternative currently on the table. Disputing the meaning of the word 'consensus' under those circumstances is just gratuitous timewasting and argumentation. Axad12 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have misread. All that I’ve suggested (the “on-wiki alternative”) is that:

Resolve conflicts / disagreements by discussions, communications, understanding, mutual respect, persuasion, and sometimes concessions. I don’t think claiming “consensus” to force others to submit is a good example of collaborative editing.

Thanks. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, no one has suggested that Zefr operated in anything other than good faith. The issue surrounds the activity of the declared COI editor (as outlined above) which is why it has been suggested that the COI editor recommences what they were trying to do, but in an appropriate way. Axad12 (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dustfreeworld:, it appears that you and I saw the meaning of "privately" differently and I would have been happy to discuss the differences and potential misunderstanding, however I feel your editing of my comment for "potentially PA" is overreaching and I meant no personal attack. What I meant to say in my comment that you hid (as a non participant) was personally/directly by "privatety". not as in secretly. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@Graywalls, thank you for your reply. As for overreaching,

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/private

3.Not publicly known or divulged; secret, confidential; (of a message) intended only for a specific person or group.

4.Protected from view or disturbance by others; secluded; not publicly accessible.

6.Secretive; reserved.

7.(finance) Not traded by the public.

Thanks again. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 18:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Dustfreeworld, I am not certain what you're saying in your cryptic indirect message IMO, Breyers shouldn’t spend/waste their money to hire people to make edit requests on Wikipedia. They should spend their money to do something like this instead. What are you specifically suggesting they should do? Graywalls (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Article continuing to gravitate towards preferred version by Zefr

• They continue to re-introduce contents, such as FDA links without consensus, justifying it with their own rationale.
• Repeatedly removing references to propylene glycol despite objection of multiple editors. This started happening shortly after a user talk message request from a public relations firm agent acting on behalf of the Unilever Corporation having made request to suppress references to propylene glycol.

Graywalls (talk) 20:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)