Talk:Breyers

In this section, does the sentence about propylene glycol with a 2013 diet book as a source have significance to the brand's history and products? Zefr (talk) 06:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping this issue all over Wikipedia (what is it now, 4 or 5 different locations?).

There has always been a strong consensus against you on this issue, ever since back in September when you were blatantly and repeatedly canvassed on your talk page to do the bidding of a paid COI editor (as detailed here ).

The only appropriate way for this issue to be resolved is via a COI edit request where the nature of the paid conflict of interest is clearly stated. This RfC is a blatant abuse of process. Axad12 (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• When the disputed content is in only one article, then the talk page of that article is the normal and correct place to discuss changes to it. If prior discussions have not been able to resolve this, then an RFC is a normal step in the dispute resolution process.
• It looks like Graywalls was the first person (but not the only) to introduce the "antifreeze" comparison, on 28 October 2024 (apologies if I missed an earlier version). The choice to emphasize the substance's use as automotive antifreeze instead of its extensive use as a food and drug additive – one specifically authorized for ice cream in multiple countries, in fact – makes me wonder about WP:POV problems. Wikipedia articles have to be neutral and encyclopedic, even when we're working from blatantly WP:RSBIASED and sensationalistic sources. Most food ingredients can be put to some non-food purpose: sugar is a strong bactericidal agent, salt is a weedkiller and molluscicide, and have you heard about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide? It's been found in every single cancer cell, and 300,000 people died last year from accidentally inhaling it.
• We do not blame editors for being "canvassed on their talk pages". Editors are responsible only for their own actions, and not for other editors' actions.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That does not change the fact that this RfC relates to a previously declined COI edit request , a fact that is not disclosed in the RfC request above.

Similarly it does not change the fact that the requesting editor here previously acted as a proxy for the paid COI editor in an attempt to over-ride the previous declined COI edit request. Axad12 (talk) 08:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

So? Disclosing some other editor's COI is not actually a requirement for an RFC question. If you wanted, though, you could add a list of links to all relevant conversations that didn't happen on this page.

Also, WP:PROXYING is about banned editors, not about responding to COI edit requests or objecting to how someone else responded to a COI edit request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I did not invoke WP:PROXYING as you well know. I said "acted as a proxy", which is a perfectly normal real world expression which accurately describes the series of events under consideration here. Those events are possibly the worst behaviour by a paid COI editor that I have seen on Wikipedia. That the requesting editor here allowed themselves to be co-opted into forwarding the agenda of a paid COI editor is quite disgraceful. That they should open an RfC on the same subject without disclosing their past history does them no credit at all.

Clearly, when a COI edit request is turned down it is grossly inappropriate for the paid COI editor to attempt to pick up a co-operative project member, feed them some non-contentious COI edit requests to implement, and then re-submit the contentious and previously declined edit request while simultaneously tipping off their shill to go and deal with it.

If there is no serious abuse of Wikipedia implicit in that series of actions then we might as well abandon trying to prevent COI editing and allow paid COI editors to author entire articles themselves. Axad12 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

If you use words that match our jargon, you should expect it to be interpreted as jargon. That's true for WP:PROXYING here and Wikipedia:Gaming the system in our chat at ANI.

I've had COI editors ask for my help. I either help or don't, depending on whether I feel like it. I see them more often on WikiProject pages, but they're basically like any other editor: when they need help, they ask for it. If you think that asking for help is "possibly the worst behaviour" you've ever seen, then I'll say that years ago, we had lawyers for an active court case – on both sides – trying to get a Wikipedia article re-written to support their side of the case. Merely asking for help is nothing compared to that. And TBH if I were on a corporate marketing team and wanted to do something sneaky, I wouldn't approach Zefr, who has earned a reputation for being particularly strict about sourcing. In fact, I'd probably wait until he was on vacation.

You seem to put a lot of stock in that "previously declined edit request", as if it were somehow more special than any other talk page discussion. And, if you will take some unsolicited advice, calling someone "their shill" is going to get you in trouble for Wikipedia:No personal attacks. We often go to great lengths to pretend that almost nothing is a personal attack, but actual, direct name-calling is the one thing you really must avoid, because it's the hardest thing to claim isn't "personal" and isn't an "attack". WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've now removed the word as per your advice, for which my thanks.

I'm also grateful to you for your advice on the use of on-wiki jargon but I continue to believe that (however one chooses to express it) the events in question constituted an intentional attempt by a paid editor to distort the COI edit request process.

However, I accept that those events are entirely separate to the content issue and they rightly fall outside of the bounds of this RfC. If there is anything further to be said on the COI front then I'd suggest that it would be better discussed elsewhere.

With regard to the topic of this RfC I don't have a particularly strong feeling on the matter and I generally avoid content discussions disputes.

To the best of my recollection, in the various talk page threads here over the last few months I've thus restricted myself to two forms of comment: A) concerns over the COI angle, and B) statements that the consensus from Aug-Dec 2024 was broadly in favour of inclusion of some mention of Propylene Glycol. That was the position advocated by 6 or 7 different users, if I recall correctly, and those voices were opposed by perhaps 3 or 4 users taking the opposite position. In any event, there was no consensus during that period in favour of changing the article text.

• Axad12 said: "position advocated by 6 or 7 different users". Who are they? Invite them here so we have their position now. The count might be different after these sources were summarized, all of which had been presented earlier in the article and talk page history, yet ignored by you, Graywalls, and NutmegCoffeeTea. As Graywalls was the main long-term advocate of the "antifreeze" term, and still today is defending mention of propylene glycol, let's have the reasons explained why so everyone can evaluate them. Zefr (talk) 07:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I can see that the discussion here is moving towards a different (and more robust) consensus and I welcome that. My support is for the community consensus, whatever it may be. That has always been the case and will continue to be the case going forwards. Axad12 (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with you that a robust and durable agreement among editors is the best outcome, both here and for all RFCs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, it's a real misfortune that this process wasn't resorted to back in Oct/Nov (when the 2nd COI edit request was received and then argued over), or even back in August (when the original COI edit request was turned down). Had that occurred a great deal of time would have been saved and a great deal of ill will would have been avoided.

From my standpoint it wasn't a process that I was familiar with - but I can see from the many excellent contributions here that this is the best way of resolving content disputes. Axad12 (talk) 09:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Zefr,

As I said above, the position historically was that there was a majority in favour of inclusion but I can now see that the discussion here is moving towards a different (and more robust) consensus and I welcome that.

Therefore I do not intend to Invite them here so we have their position now and nor do I feel in any way obliged to respond to demands of that nature, either "now" or at any other time.

My comments in the various talk page discussions have generally been restricted solely to the position of the consensus as I saw it. I've said now several times that I agree with the consensus whatever it may be. I have not entered into the detail of this content dispute and I certainly do not intend to be drawn into it when the RfC is, as far as I can see, moving towards a very clear consensus. Consequently I'm not sure why you continue to treat me as an opponent in this discussion. I have never opposed your position, I have only ever stated that the consensus historically was against you.

Therefore, if you are still spoiling for a fight I suggest you locate someone who actually disagrees with you on the content issue rather than a passive observer interested only in following the consensus whatever it may be. Axad12 (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm doubtful. That paragraph introduces the idea of the brand being known for "all-natural" ice cream, which is the first time we hear about this concept in the whole article. The "frozen dairy dessert" thing (in the previous paragraph) is badly explained; it's less a case of "Unilever claims" and more a case of "the US federal government prohibits anyone from calling a product 'ice cream' unless there is a sufficient amount of fat in it". At a glance, almost everything that is said here about Breyers is equally true for every other brand of ice cream, including generic/store brands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The book in question says this:

"AVOID ANTIFREEZE.  There's an ingredient hiding in some ice creams that might give you serious pause.  It's antifreeze, otherwise known as proylene glycol.  Skinny Cow, Breyers Fat-free, and Carb Smart, among other brands, use it in their "light" ice creams to make them easier to scoop when you open the container."

Two pages later, they recommend one Breyer's ice cream and dis-recommend another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I've been summoned via the RfC. I perused most of the discussion above, which feels like it started with the COI edit requests; I also read the DR discussion. Seeing as the article currently does not contain an anti-freeze comparison, I do not really see why this has been called for by Zefr. What I see are the 27 December edits, which would lead to the article ending up whitewashed. As it stands, the text summarises relevantly how the "all-natural" branding clashes with the additives which've been present since 2013. I do not feel the pre-conflict writing of the article was too bad, either: "One result of these cost-cutting practices has been that many (but not all) of Breyers' products no longer contain enough milk and cream to meet labeling requirements for ice cream, and are now labeled "Frozen Dairy Dessert" in the United States and "Frozen Dessert" in Canada."

Alas, this is a case of WP:1AM. Both sides should reflect and try to reach not a consensus - which is unlikely, given how long this has gone on for - but a compromise, which even if unsatisfying will be the best thing for this article's quality, neutrality, and the preservation of the community's time. As it stands, this environment is WP:POOR - take a deep breath, WP:AGF, and keep editing. Coeusin (talk) 11:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at it before, but the sources don't actually support a claim about cost-cutting. They do support a claim that the Dairy Farmers of Canada were running an advertising campaign against Breyers and anyone else who produced an ice cream-esque product. The Star quotes Nestlé as saying "Consumers make choices based on a number of factors including calories, fat content, indulgence and portion control" and the dairy farmers as saying that "imported vegetable oils" are cheaper than butterfat, but the source doesn't say that cost-cutting is a motivation for using less butterfat. (It also only mentions Breyers to say that the PR department didn't reply to them.)

So I have done a little original research, in the form of going to the grocery store website and getting the list of ingredients for two of their products that cannot be legally described as ice cream:

• Breyers Carb Smart vanilla frozen dairy dessert: Milk, Cream, Sorbitol, Maltodextrin (Corn), Water, Whey, Less Than 2% Of: Glycerin, Mono And Diglycerides, Vegetable Gums (Guar, Carob Bean), Natural Flavor, Acesulfame Potassium, Sucralose, (Splenda® Brand).
• Breyers Extra Creamy Vanilla frozen dairy dessert: Skim Milk, Sugar, Cream, Corn Syrup, Water, Less Than 2% of: Whey, Mono and Diglycerides, Guar Gum, Carob Bean Gum, Tara Gum, Natural Flavor, Annatto (for Color), Vitamin A Palmitate.

There's no oil in there. That suggests that those dairy-industry-destroying "imported vegetable oils" are not the reason for the reduced butterfat content. It's possible that the Nestlé spokesperson is correct, and that the reason is that some consumers prefer an ice cream-like product that has two-thirds the calories with less total fat and sugar.

(The other source only talks about Dairy Farmers of Ontario and their pro-dairy/pro-high-fat ice cream marketing campaign, and shouldn't have been used in this article at all.)

I now wonder who added those sources, as if they were innocent facts and not primarily about the dairy industry's marketing campaign. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice investigation, WhatamIdoing! The ingredients list of the two Breyers frozen dairy desserts you show also do not include propylene glycol.

Your investigation is confirmed by Graywalls who did some Breyers product research in 2024, generously providing this label from a Breyers frozen dessert. The ingredients list is different from your two, but again, no propylene glycol.

Nice to have actual label confirmation from two different editors (presumed different geographic locations) that three Breyers frozen dairy desserts in 2024-25 do not contain propylene glycol. Zefr (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

My answer to the specific question of the RfC, this one particular sentence from this one particular book, is "no". It's not relevant, and it's stated misleadingly in the text of the book. I don't know what the credentials are of the book author, I would lean toward using this diet book for opinion, rather than for fact. But definitely, this particular sentence from this particular source should not be used.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The anti-freeze comment comes directly from the book. It's not like I came up with it, so it isn't a POV matter. I'm not insistent on including "anti-freeze" however mention of propylene glycol is warranted and rough consensus from numerous editors in talk page supports this. Also, at least one editor expressed concerns about suppressing information done at the request of public relations firm, who made the request at behest of Unilever Corporation. Graywalls (talk) 08:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Material straight out of a source can be a POV matter ("biased content in Wikipedia"). The fact that it came directly from the book proves that it's not an OR matter ("stuff made up by a Wikipedia editor"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

From the essay WP:POVSOURCE even if the source is not perfectly neutral, it's use isn't forbidden. Since "anti-freeze" isn't mentioned, I feel like this part is a settled matter though. Graywalls (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here is what I wrote above about five weeks ago, and I stand by it today: I believe that a brief mention of propylene glycol is OK but I oppose multiple sentences as undue weight, and I firmly oppose use of the word "antifreeze" which carries connotations of poisoning and adulteration. Propylene glycol is Generally recognized as safe in small quantities and is widely used in food processing, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and hand sanitizers. Industrial uses include polymer manufacturing and as an additive in water based house paints to slow drying. Mentioning its use in antifreezes is misleading because its concentration is vastly higher in such applications. It also results in confusion with another common antifreeze ingredient, Ethylene glycol, which is vastly more toxic than propylene glycol. Cullen328 (talk) 08:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

In general I agree with WAID and Cullen here. Describing a permitted food additive as "anti-freeze" when that is not the description in the source of the function for which it used is both POV pushing and OR. If you want to describe it as antifreeze, find a reliable source stating that it is "used in the product as anti-freeze". · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

P.S. Using an ingredient as antifreeze in ice-cream also comes over as weird, since ice-cream is expected to be served frozen, which an effective ant-freeze would prevent. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but the current article text here does not use the word "anti-freeze". This RfC isn't about whether the word "anti-freeze" should appear in the article. Axad12 (talk) 10:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

• I wouldn't include it. The source is fine for saying that it was an ingredient at the time (as current ingredient lists don't include it), but so what. One work mentioned it in passing as something to avoid. Not every minor detail that is verifiable should be in an article (WP:BALASP). If this is the only source for this as a concern, then it's not due inclusion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Omit An ingredient officially recognized as safe, and not apparently even the subject of any unofficial controversy, has no place being mentioned just because some dumb diet author chose to shock his readers with it. EEng 16:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Leave the sentence out – that source is extremely misleading, when a reader clicks on that page in the book, the first thing they see is – AVOID ANTIFREEZE; there's an ingredient hiding in some ice creams that might give you serious pasue. It's antifreeze, otherwise known as propylene glycol. And then the author (see EEngs apt description above) can't even be bothered to explain that as a food additive, propylene glycol is generally recognized as safe. And the way that sentence is tacked on at that end of that para in that section is kinda WP:SYNTHy as well, as if this food additive is a legitimate "Consumer concern" or has received any substantial "feedback". I can't believe this even requires a RfC, that particular sentence is wildly undue. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• NO ((invited randomly by a bot) Propylene glycol is a very common food additive present in many prepared foods. I see no reason to identify it's use in this instance. This looks like a POV issue that we should avoid. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Leave it out (entirely, don't even mention propylene glycol). Other editors argue that this specific ingredient should be mentioned to counter claims that the product is "natural", but see no reason why this single additive is more significant than the many others, it being misleadingly used to scare people in single unnotable book isn't any justification for this. Just say that there are additives in the product. The anti-freeze comment is also obviously misleading as the effect of something is all about the dosage of as substance, and propylene glycol is recognised as safe in these amounts. MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 23:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
• Get rid of it. This should not be controversial. Anyone backing up explicit or implicit biomedical claims with these diet books (one of them published by Skyhorse, which also publishes RFK Jr's antivax nonsense), should not be anywhere near this kind of content. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:33, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites exactly! This is a questionable source, and citing it isn't due weight, anyway.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:34, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• Remove seems to be undue emphasis based on a questionable source.Void if removed (talk) 11:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• Remove A diet book written by a non-expert is not sufficiently reliable to support this content. Simonm223 (talk) 15:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Remove, propylene glycol is used ubiquitously in food and cosmetic products without controversy. This is blatant chemophobia, strangely inserted into an article on one of the tens of thousands of products that use propylene glycol. Photos of Japan (talk) 16:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
• Remove No evidence that this is significant, other than who very poor-quality sources that just mention it in passing.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)