Talk:Grandiosa/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Grandis.jpg
Image:Grandis.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User conducting a vendetta?
This article is currently being edit-bombed by 86.140.49.221 / Johncons (aparrently the same individual) in what appears to be some sort of vendetta against the company. The edits seem to be original research and are certainly not written from a neutral point of view. Attempts by Nivix and myself to revert them have been quickly overridden. Ros0709 11:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only updating the article on some new information that has been brought up regarding the product.

And this information is being supported with links to the company webpage and other well-known sources.

And the reason I was overriding the revert-atempt from Nivix, was that I rewrote the information in a new way, where all the information is supported with links.

The information I've written is possible to read on the company webpage, and in the other references, that is being refered to in the two sections.

Please explain whats wrong with adding new information.

And I'm writing this from a neutral point of view.

If I had known similar information regarding another product, I would have written about this information in the same way.

I'm living in Britain, and I'm not a part in anything to do with pizzas in the Nordic countries.

And if I was on a sort of vendetta, I could have written much worse things in the article.

I work as a company researcher, and is used to procesing information.

And I think that information like this, should be puplicly known, like I've understood, that openness and free information are important parts of the Wikimedia filosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 12:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can't just say that it's not from a neutral point of view.

You need to bring substance to this, since I'm writing from a neutral point of view.

So I'm removing the tags. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 12:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The sections are written in an entirely unbalanced way, suggesting throughout some large-scale corporate misdemeaners using language coloured with emotive terms such as "paradox" and "mystery". When I read past this all it seems to boil down to is that the company has multiple distribution/production centres and perhaps tailors the ingredients to the target markets. None of the references are in English so are useless in the context of this article. Removal of POV tags constitutes vandalism. Ros0709 12:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have replaced the POV tags. Rather than have us just revert and re-revert changes the idea is to encourage other editors to contribute to the debate and let the majority opinion prevail. Ros0709 12:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm a bit new here.

I know the business from working many years as a manager in the food retail branch in Norway.

So I think I should know that it's a bit strange that Norway's most sold food-product, Pizza Grandiosa Orginial, which is selling more than 20 million products a year in Norway, isn't sold in Sweden at all, even if the producer, Orkla, is selling 20 different pizza-types in Sweden, including two Norwegian Big One pizza-types.

But not any of the regular Grandiosa-types, even if these are selling very much in Norway and Finland. Thats why this article has been written in English, due to the extreme popularity of Grandiosa in Norway.

The point is, that the extremly popular Grandiosa-types in Norway, aren't sold at all in Sweden.

(Only the Big One pizzas are, which aren't relly Grandiosa pizzas at all, in the context that they are not called Grandiosa in Norway, and they are not mentioned in this article, due to this).

So these, the Big One pizzas, are not really that popular at all.

But they are produced in an own factory, in the same municipality as the Grandiosa-factory, and both factories have got their own pizza bread bakery.

So no synergies are made, and no ingredients are used in both factories.

And the extremly popular Grandiosa pizzas are not sold in Sweden, while the much less popular Big One pizzas are.

Even if they are being sold by the same company in both Norway and Sweden.

So I think you must be wrong when you are writing: 'it seems to boil down to is that the company has multiple distribution/production centres and perhaps tailors the ingredients to the target markets.'.

I think this is very peculiar, to be honest.

From knowing the business and the market.

So I think it's clear that the tags should be removed.

But if I'm not alloved to remove them, then I'll just try to find out more about what to do.

I'm not sure if one should put to many tags in articles surrounding subject which one don't know to much about.

But that's just my opinion I guess.

So we'll just have to wait and see then I guess.

It's not that easy to find references in English.

But I can see if it's possible to find more of them, maybe on a later occation.

And I guess in the meantime, do like you suggest, and see if some of the other users have something relevant to contribute with regarding this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry that I was complaing a bit in the last post, I'm a bit new with writing on Wikipedia still.

Now I've edited away all the irrelevant information, so now it should only be the bare facts, so to speak.

So if someone have some constructive feedback on the changes, in the context of if the sections are okey now with the Wikipedia rules, then that would be very fine.

Thanks for the help in advance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The current version of the text is, to my mind, more objectively written. I'm still a bit uneasy about it but think a reasonable compromise has been reached. I've removed the tags now; other editors, of course, may well come and update what's there.


 * In specific answer to "I'm not sure if one should put to many tags in articles surrounding subject which one don't know to much about": with expertise sometimes comes a point of view. With this article, consider me an outsider viewing the subject with no preconceptions and no agenda, ideally placed to spot the issues of neutrality and verifiability. The tags are a means of inviting others to contribute to the discussion and offer opinion: we did not reach an early concensus, neither of us has any more claim to be correct over the other, so a way out of the impasse is to seek others' opinions. Ros0709 16:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Johncons is on a personal vendetta against Pizza Grandiosa. His campaign against the pizza seems to have originated at this forum thread (he is posting as both cons and johncons).

He has started an edit war at no.wikipedia, and the page is now semiprotected as a result. His original research is inappropriate in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the right place to “tell the truth” about Pizza Grandiosa. --Kjetil r 17:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to answer about first things first.

I had to use the nick johncons, insted of cons, on the message-board, for a couple of days, since I couldn't get to my bt webmail.

So I had to use the johncons nick on the mentioned Norwegian message-board, for a couple of days, until I got to add the bt internet e-mails in Outlook.

This should be well documented on the Norwegian Veggavisen message-board, since I explained about this, when I started using the johncons nick instead of the cons nick, for a couple of days.

So I haven't relly meant to be using to different usernames, I was only using one username at one time, and I changed it back as soon as I got to the reset password, that was in an e-mail sent to my bt email-address.

I can't really see that there should be something wrong with contributing to initiating discussions on message-boards.

And I don't really understand what's wrong about telling something which is the truth.

I've explained earlier on this page, that what I have been trying to, has been to update the article, with the findings, that we found when we we're discussing the contence of the Grandiosa on the message-board.

I can't really see that there should be anything wrong with doing this.

And this is not original research, the information I've been writing are established facts, and I've documented this thorowly, in the sections.

I can't see that the critisism from Kjetilr is valid, since I can't see that there is very much substance to it.

I'm new to writing on Wikipedia, which I have been explaining, and I have not intended to start any type of war on the Norwegian site.

I have just wanted to update on the relevant pages, regarding the new information, that we found about these products in the thread on the message-board.

And I'm not on any type of campaign or vendetta at all.

It's just a coincidence that I've started writing about this subject.

Just because I've been writing about Pizza Grandiosa, doesn't mean I'm on a vendetta against it.

If someone wants the link to my blog, then should be possible to see that I have posting several hundred entries there, about pluss minus one hundred subjects, if I should guess.

So that I've started writing about Pizza Grandiosa, is more or less just a coincidental, it's just that one have to start writing somewhere.

And I'm planning to learn more about writing on Wikipedia, so it's not at all like I'm only planing to write about Pizza Grandiosa.

But I'm sorry if I wrote something wrong on the Norwegian Grandiosa-article.

If I get spesific feedback on what was wrong, then it would be easier for me to correct this.

Instead of just deleting everyting I have been writing, without explaining it proberly.

This doesn't make much sense to me.

Neighter does this, that as soon as the dispute with the tags has been resolved, then new tags imeadiatly appear.

I'm not sure how I should deal with this, since I don't think I can agree with the reasons for this, which I think maybe are a bit vague and without substance.

So I think it would be very fine if someone have got some advice on how I should go forward with this.

I seem to remember that I've tryed to write on Mr. kjetilr's disussion-page, regarding resolving the problem from yesterday, with the Norwegian Grandiosa article.

But when I had a look again now, on the discussion-page, I wasn't able to find the text that I had been writing there yesterday.

So it's not like I'm not trying to resolve this conflict at all.

So I would think it would be very if someone have some advice on how I should go forward with the tags and the conflict.

Thanks in advance regarding this!

Johncons 17:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How to go forward
The answer is simple. If you can find reliable sources to support the content that you wish to add, then add it, and cite those sources. Unless and until you find such sources, it cannot remain. Please bear in mind that newsgroups, web forums, blogs, what you mate told you down the pub etc. are NOT reliable sources. If those are all the sources you have then it cannot remain. Mayalld 13:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The sources are in the references.

These are from the companies website, and from online newspapers etc.

(Please see above on this page).

These issues were being discussed on the message-board, but the substance were brought in, from the reliable sources.

I'm not citing something that just has been said on the message-board, im citing reliable sources.

Johncons 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Please set out, clearly, which sources you believe to be reliable that cover these issues
 * Do not include other sources (such as message boards). They just make it difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff
 * Do not synthesise facts from multiple sources (A says X, B says Y, therefore Z)
 * Work for a consensus first. Adding controvertial data, then demanding that people discuss removing it is no way to go.
 * I am more than happy to help you to work up an acceptable addition to the piece, but continuing to battle to get your POV into the article in the face of overwhelming opposition is only going to lead in one direction - You would get blocked, and the article would stay just as it is now Mayalld 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I edited the article in a way which made the opposing writer, remove the POV tags.

Then a new writer, who it seems must have been following me, on the message-board (since the writer knew my user-name from the message-board, before I started using a user-name on Wikipedia), appeared and immideatly replaced the tags, even if a consensius was made.

And this writer, I think, must have deleted the text I have been writing on the writers discussion-page.

So I'm not sure how to be able to have any meaningful dialog, regarding the updates, when ones attempts to comunicate are just ignored.

But anyway.

I'll have a look at it again, on a later occation, with the edits and citations.

So thanks very much for the advice regarding this!

Johncons 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just checked the edit history, and indeed ONE editor was persuaded to remove POV tags that he had placed there. Every other editor you encountered took the opposite view, and added tags.
 * Please work out where you wish to go next, and bring it here to gain consensus, before attempting to edit the article again. Mayalld 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are writing that 'Every other editor you encountered took the opposite view, and added tags.'.

As far as I remember, it was only one other editor who added tags, and this editor, is the one I was mentioning above, the one who knew my nick, (and refered to it, 'cons', the version of my nick that I'm usually using on Norwegian message-boards etc), from before I started using my nick (the 'johncons' version) on Wikipedia.

I'm not sure if everyone agrees with my judgement, when I'm thinking that this is a bit 'fishy', to use a common term.

So I think I have been followed and harassed on Wikipedia, and I was wondering how one should go forward when this happens here.

I have to get some work done now.

But I'll be back on a later occation, and then I'll try to resolve the problems with the edits, citations, harassment and following.

Thanks in advance for any advice in the mean-time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see that you have been followed or harrassed. You have made a quite phenomenal number of edits (over 200) to a single article, in an attempt to force the acceptance of two sections that you have written that other editors believe to be biased and unsourced. The fact that another editor worked out who you were is hardly evidence of stalking. If he had seen you pushing this POV on a non-wiki message board, and then sees the same POV being pushed on Wiki, then it doesn't take a genius to make the connection. In any case, attempting to brand the actions of another editor won't alter the judgement of what you write in the article. Mayalld 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It was you who brought up the actions of the other editors.

I pointed to the fact that there could be something wrong, or 'fishy' was the word I used, going on.

I'm not sure in which position you are to judge if something is considered harassment or following, or not.

And to bring in a number of edits into this, doesn't seem relevant to me.

I think I have tryed to explain my meaning regarding this now.

What I'll do, is to resume on these issues, when some days have passed, so that hopefully things have calmed a bit down.

And then I'm going to try to learn a bit more regarding the rules for editing, citations, harassment and following etc, so that I'm sure that I'm dealing with this, according to the Wikipedia rules.

So thanks very much in the mean-time, for the contributions with advice in the discussion.

Johncons 15:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I merely pointed out that you acted to continually press the point despite more than one other editor taking issue with it. In such circumstances, it is often better to seek consensus instead of battling on.


 * So far as whether you have been followed or harassed, I've read through a good deal of the material, and as somebody who was uninvolved in the exchanges until I spotted the unusual edit activity, and as someone who has a fair bit of experience around innocent and malicious actions, I could see no deliberately malicious acts.


 * I welcome the fact that you intend to learn more about the rules on citations, reliable sources and the like, and would advise that this is where you should direct your attention. Throwing around allegations of harassment, stalking and the like without very sound evidence is ill-advised in the extreme, and whether you believe that there is something fishy or not, there just isn't sufficient evidence to substantiate such an allegation. Mayalld 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who tagged then detagged the article. Although I detagged it I remain bothered by it and in a vote would currently say the two new paragraphs should be removed. As I see it there are six major issues which have to be resolved:

  What are the author's motives? He states that he is expert in the business and merely reporting his findings. On the other hand, it appears he has used several outlets to raise these issues and has certainly spent many hours working and reworking this text - to an extent above and beyond what I would consider impartisan. The early text was significantly biased and certainly not written from a NPOV, so I believe there is an agenda of some sort.

 Are the claims substantiated? The references are not in English and I cannot tell; therefore I must assume they are not.

 Is this new research? Ditto.

 What is the point of this? The author reports that it is suspicious that the Company is not marketing a product in one country when it is a top seller in another. Is it? What exactly is being insinuated? How do you conclude wrong-doing, and what evidence is there to back this up? Is there a reference for anyone else concluding wrong-doing

 Is this appropriate for the English version of Wikipedia? This seems to concern the Scandinavian countries, references articles which are not in English and is generally of no interest to UK/US readership.

 Are there legal concerns? Is this article libellous? 

Ros0709 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wrote that I wouldn't write any more for some days, but anyway.

1-6: I suspect they are putting dead people in the food.

I haven't really got the time now, to go into all the indexed points in detail, but I'll get back to this later. I'll get back to this in more detail later.

Johncons 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole problem here is that you suspect, as opposed to reliable sources saying that it is so. Wikipedia is about recording verifiable information. It is not about providing a billboard for people to champion their own theories. If you are, in fact, an expert here, you should cite reliable sources that have reported your opinions. Mayalld 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I couldn't stay away. (I'm in a break from work).

My agenda is to increase public awareness regarding these products, by sharing the knowledgde I've got, by citating reliable sources.

Which I think that I was really doing.

I have a questions for you Mayalld:

You write that Wikipedia is not a billboard for people to champion their own theries.

I think that I wasn't doing this.

I was quoting reliable sources.

And I admit that I wrote a statement like: 'There is doubt about which binding-agent it is that is being used in the 'pizza-meat''.

But this doubt, (that you asked me to find a citation for).

This doubt, is really substanciated, by the other citations, that I had added in the section from before.

Question: isn't it ok to write that there is 'doubt', when the doubt is substanciated by the other information in the section/article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johncons (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It is OK to write that there is doubt, if a reliable source expresses that opinion.
 * It is not OK to "synthesise". Thus if the reliable sources say "This pizza is the best selling in Norway", and "This pizza is not sold in Sweden", you cannot draw conclusions about the reasons for that, no matter how "obvious" the conclusion is. You must back up the conclusion with a source.
 * Your sources must be reliable. This doesn't just mean that you trust them, it means that they meet WP:RS. In general, blogs, discussion groups, newsgroups, and websites run by organisations with an agenda are NOT reliable sources. An "online newspaper" may be reliable, but equally they could be unreliable, it depends on how rigorous their editorial control is.
 * Mayalld 07:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so lets discuss the proposed changes
The article has now been protected from any editing for 7 days, so let us use the time well! Mayalld 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Let us look at the sources that are proposed, and determine which are WP:RS
 * 2) Let us look at what those sources say. As I understand it, they are not in English, which means that it is sensible to add translations of any relevant section here
 * 3) At that point, we can start to work up a draft of a text that sticks to WP:NPOV WP:V and WP:RS

I'm not sure if I got an answer to the question.

I just asked a simple question.

(Isn't it ok to write that there is 'doubt', when the doubt is substanciated by the other information in the section/article?).

It's not that I'm demaning an answer to all my questions here.

But I think this question is relevant here.

So I was wondering, if it would be possible to get a spesific answer to this question.

I'll spesify the question a bit, so it's only to do with the section:

Question: Isn't it ok to write that there is 'doubt', when the doubt is substanciated by the other information in the section?

Johncons 10:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think your question was answered succinctly. You may have established two distinct facts and backed them up with references, but any conclusion you may derive from those facts is original research unless you can back that up with a reference too. By way of example, consider this statement:


 * King George IV reigned from 1936 to 1952 (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page147.asp). Queen Elizabeth II reigned from 1952 (http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page148.asp). It is doubtful King George died of natural causes - he was most likely murdered by his daughter so she could become queen.

Clearly there's a major accusation going on there and absolutely no evidence to substantiate it despite the appearance of two verifiable facts. In fact, it is patently false. But this is exactly how you seem to be making your criticisms: you have established two facts and claim these lead to a self-evident conclusion. Even if the conclusion were self-evident (and it's not) there still needs to be a reference to support it. Ros0709 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you have maybe misunderstood the question.

What I'm thinking of, is this section:

'Doubt surrounding the 'pizza-meat' binding-agent The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page.

There is some doubt surrounding which binding-agent is being used in the 'pizza-meat' mixture.[4][citation needed] One of the webpages on the Stabburet website states that the binding-agent being used is soy protein[5], while another states that the binding-agent being used is gelatin based on swine.[6] In an 1997 article from the online editon of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, the Factory Director, Ivar Moss, is being referred to as saying, with the Information Director in Orkla Foods, Håkon Mageli present, that they have recently switched the binding-agent from soy protein to gelatin.[7] On the Grandiosa boxes, it's saying, that the binding-agent being used is soy protein.[8][9][10]'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grandiosa&oldid=175466440

So, I'm trying to ask yet again, the same question, before I go on.

Question: Isn't it ok to write that there is 'doubt', when the doubt is substanciated by the other information in the section?

Johncons 11:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with the question is that it isn't a question to which a yes/no answer is possible. It is OK to say that there is doubt if a reliable source says that there is doubt. It is not OK to synthesise that there is doubt because that is a logical conclusion from what the sources say.


 * I've had a look through the text that was added. Whilst it contains a number of different references, It actually cites three different sources;
 * Veggavisen message board
 * Stabburet website
 * Dagbladet online version


 * We need to consider the question as to the extent to which these can be considered reliable sources.


 * Not a reliable source. There just isn't the degree of editorial control over the content.
 * A reliable source to back up any assertion as to what the company claims
 * A reliable source to back up any assertion as to what an employee has said


 * Now, at this point, we come to a slightly tricky bit, in that I speak not a word of Norwegian, and cannot review the sources directly to check what they actually say. However, I think we can assume that sources 2 and 3 say the following things;
 * The binding agent is soy protein (1 webpage from source 2)
 * The binding agent is swine-derived gelatin (a different webpage from source 2)
 * The binding agent used to be soy protein but changed to swine-derived gelatin (the report from source 3)

Yes, except for that the source 3 says gelatin, and not gelain based on swine. (like source 2 says on one webpage)

There is also a source 4, and thats the Finnish Grandiosa-website. It's says that the binding agent is soy-protein.

Johncons 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

So, the text we add can say exactly that, and no more.

"There is doubt as to what binding agent is used, as the company website makes conflicting statements as to whether it is soy protein or animal gelatin [cites], whilst an employee has told a newspaper that the company switched from soy protein to animal gelatin in about 1997 [cite]"

The section about what they do and don't sell in Sweden, and the inferences drawn are entirely unsupported by any reliable source cited thus far, and cannot be included. Mayalld 12:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What they sell in Sweden, is supported by the Swedish Graniosa-website, where it says which pizzas that are being sold there.

But maybe we should deal with one section at the time?

Johncons 13:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

For the binding agent, the definitive statement of the ingredient list is what is written on the product packaging. It may be that in different territories and at different times the ingredients may have changed and that information on websites is muddled and/or out of date. It may even possibly be that there is some attempt at misinformation. Your text, deliberately or not, gave the impression that there was an attempt at misinformation: this is a conclusion that the references do not seem to directly support so you cannot make it.

For the Swedish marketing I refer you back to my earlier analogy using the British Monarchy. Two correct and verifiable facts should not be used as a smokescreen to introduce an unverifiable conclusion. You can observe all you like that a Company is marketing a product in one country but not another but you have nothing that provides any verifiable explanation of why that should be. Again, you infer that the reason is sinister but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that, still less any evidence to support it.

Ros0709 14:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Same activity on no:Diskusjon:Pizza Grandiosa
Just writing to let you know that we have the same activity on no:wp. -- Atluxity 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What type of activity is it that you have going on?

Johncons 12:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Atluxity, in order to move this discussion on, could you possibly summarise the content of the sources cited in English for the benefit of those of us who speak no Norwegian? Mayalld 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

What about my question above, I can't see that the question I've been asking three times has been yet.

I don't mean to complain.

I just thought I'd try to remind you about this.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Johncons 13:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit: It was really answered anyway, it was just me who didn't notice at once.

Sorry about this!

Johncons 13:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Mayalld:

I think we can keep the original text. (If we remove the citations from the message-boards.

Because everything is substanciated from our the three sources.

2: Stabburet, Norwegian website

3: Dagbladet, Norwegian newspaper.

4: Finnish Grandiosa website.

Suggestion:

There is some doubt surrounding which binding-agent is being used in the 'pizza-meat' mixture. One of the webpages on the Stabburet website states that the binding-agent being used is soy protein[2.1], while another states that the binding-agent being used is gelatin based on swine.[2.2] In an 1997 article from the online editon of the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet, the Factory Director, Ivar Moss, is being referred to as saying, with the Information Director in Orkla Foods, Håkon Mageli present, that they have recently switched the binding-agent from soy protein to gelatin.[3] On the Grandiosa boxes, it's saying, that the binding-agent being used is soy protein.[4]'.

How does this look to you?

Thanks in advance for the reply!

Johncons 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no "doubt". The box ingredients state that soy protein is being used. Any "doubt" is simply FUD created by you. 1997 was 10 years ago so anything reported then is no longer a relevant source for today. All that's left is some (possibly out of date) information on websites which seems to be contradictory but in no way overrides what is written in the ingredients list. This is such a non-noteworthy observation it has no place in the article. Ros0709 14:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it's strange if there isn't any doubt.

The webpage on the Stabburet website, which states that the binding agent is gelatin based on swine, is created 12/04/2007

And it's a nutrition-guide, its under these categories: Stabburet - Ernæring og helse (= Nutrition and Health) - Næringstabeller (=Nutrition-tables) - Grandiosa.

http://www.stabburet.no/eway/default.aspx?pid=223&trg=Content_4407&Main_4320=4407:0:10,1238:1:0:0:::0:0&Content_4407=4330:15476::1:4410:2:::0:0&kwid=10,1238

So what we have, is that from before 1997, then the binding agent was Soy Protein. [3]

Then gelatin [3]

Now soy protein [4]

Agree?

And we also have the [2], right above in this post, which is saying that the binding agent is gelatin based on swine (webpage created 12/04/07).

So we have the fact that the binding-agent is being switched often.

In the Dagbladet article [3].

This is said:

The Information Director: I can't tell you the supplier of the soy protein [to the journalist], but we have got garanties from the supplier, that the soy protein, is non gen-modified.

2 weeks later, in the same article, they travel to Stranda.

The Factory Director is refered to saying: We have recently switched the binding agent from soy protein, to gelatin, since the supplier couldn't garantee that the soy protein was non gen-modified [anyway].

(On question from the journalist, when the Factory Director forgot to mention the binding agent, when he listed up the origin-countries for the ingredients in Grandiosa Original).

--

Yet, they change back to soy protein later. [4]

Except for in the nutrition guide. (webpage created 12/04/07) [2]

--

And I'm not sure if I can bring myself into this.

But I've been working in the Norwegian food-store chain 'Rimi', from 1992 to 2004.

And within management for about ten years in Rimi.

So I have been ordering these pizzas several times a week, I've been puting them in the frezers.

I've been eating them myself, all my life more or less, untill I moved from Norway in 2004.

And I've also had customers, from time to time, asked it there was meat from Swine, in the Grandiosa Original.

I remember looking at the ingredients on the boxes, and I have never seen it saying 'gelatin based on swine', on them.

Once, I saw something like this, 'Nötkjött (storfe og svin)'. (Translates to something like meat from Cattle and Swine) (On an occation around 2002 I think it must have been, when I was working at Rimi Bjørndal in Oslo).

I think this could have been the Swedish boxes, that had gotten into our shops.

This is a guess.

But I'm sure I would have known, if it had said gelatin (based on swine), in Norwegian, on the Norwegian Pizza Grandiosa-boxes, in the time from 1994 to 2004, since I can remember that I checked for this, to help muslim customers, while working in Rimi.

--

So I'm not sure if I can agree with you that there isn't any doubt.

Because It's clear to me, that these facts can cause confution for the customers.

And for eg. muslims to decide if Pizza Grandiosa is halal or not.

Since they are changing the binding agent quite often (twice since 1997).

And this can also be relevant, in that it is a problem for muslims, to decide if Pizza Grandiosa is halal or not, if they are changing the binding agent, from vegetarian to animalic (based on swine), and back to vegetarian.

And the webpage stating that it's still gelatin based on swine, being used.

It's clear to me, that this webpage, contributes to creating doubt among the customers, regarding what the binding agent really is.

Conclution of post:

So the changes of the binding agent (three documented changes since 1997 (Edit: should be two documented changes sinces 1997, my mistake, Johncons 15:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[3][4], and the mis-information on the nutrition webpage [2].

I think these facts should be enough to substanciate 'doubt'.

Do you agree with me now?

I'm sorry if I'm not so good to explain.

Johncons 15:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the same reason I removed the tags I put up yesterday, I don't have the spirit or the enthusiasm to get deeply embroiled in this; it seems like a non-issue. I would make the following observations:

 If your investigations and conclusions, no matter how well researched and referenced, are themselves original, they can't go in. If you are making allegations of impropriety, they can't go in. (You could however report, without comment, the existence of allegations that have been made elsewhere). If the issues are of no interest to readers of the English Wikipedia, there's no point putting them in. I would argue the actual countries where the product is sold have their own version of Wikipedia so anyone actually likely to eat the product will not reference the English article. If anything does stay I would recommend a native English speaker copyedits it because some of the language is awkward (and that may be part of the reason why it seems to be biased). As it's used a lot I should point out that "gelatin based on swine" most comfortably translates as "pork gelatin" (indeed, gelatin is normally made from pork so "gelatin" alone is sufficient). 

I find the introduction of the concern whether the ingredients are Halal or not interesting. I am not an expert in Islamic food law and I may well be incorrect here, but I believed the rules on animal products concerned not only what may or may not be eaten but also the way it was reared and slaughtered. So the presence of pork gelatin may well affirm that the product is not Halal but the reverse is not true because the other ingredients need to be considered - in other words, unless the product is certified as Halal, it isn't. If I am correct in this assumption then this looks like another attempt at FUD.

Ros0709 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think that we are getting anywhere fast
The problem that we have is that Johncons has an agenda here. He suspects foul play, and is determined to say so in the article, one way or another.

We are never going to get anywhere if we start off from the position of "I want the article to say this, how do I achieve it". That is POV pushing, and can only lead to further edit protection of the article, and blocking of Johncons from editing to protect the article from further POV pushing.

Johncons, if you really want to improve this article, please enter into a discussion here. A discussion is NOT simply demanding that your questions are answered, it is not adding reams and reams more text to the discussion trying to prove your case, it is not crafting questions to try and "win" an argument by getting a yes/no answer to a question so that you can extrapolate out to suport what you want to do.

Unless you can edit the article from a NPOV, it is best that you don't edit it at all.

Mayalld 16:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ros0709 16:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already mentioned my agenda.

There were many things to comment at once.

So if we could take one thing at a time, then that would be fine I think.

Johncons 16:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so here are three points for you to take one at a time; Mayalld 16:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Please stop typing your replies with many paragraph spaces. It just makes the talk pages longer and longer
 * 2) Please keep your arguments short. More words doesn't mean more right
 * 3) Please accept, once and for all, that Wikipedia is NOT the place to pursue your agenda.

Complaint
User:Johncons has seen fit to file a complaint about me Wikiquette alerts.

I can only say that I have tried at all times to be civil, and to work with Johncons to reach an agreed position on what was and was not acceptable for the article. I am dissapointed that we seem to have arrived at a point where having failed to "get round" policy he has resorted to an attempt to smear me for championing policy, despite the effort that I've put into trying to help him.

Mayalld (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)