Talk:Traditional Grimsby smoked fish

Untitled
I have removed the following:

There has been no discussion of this contention nor any reason/evidence given to support its imposition. The democratic nature of Wikipedia denotes that debate entail before such accusations are upheld and such rewrite demands imposed. Robinjey1 (talk) 22.02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but it does read like an advert so I am reinstating the tag. Perhaps someone less invested in the article should take a look at it and do some re-writes. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Because this is an article about a commercial process, it is going to be difficult to remove too much of the market share and distinction that this product has. It may be beneficial to remove all company names and trade marks, this has worked with most editors in previous product articles.Francis E Williams (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The article seems accurate and detailed to me. Snag is I know this from personal knowledge, on which some wikieditors frown.  This is a PGI product, and much supporting information will have been submitted.  Have a look at the two jounals linked on http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/door/registeredName.html?denominationId=1756 - in particular  C49  28.02.2009  which contains excellent corroboration of what is written.  I think the 'advert' assertion is contentious, argumentative, and unfounded. --Robert EA Harvey (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As an editor who always comes down hard on commercial promo and spam I think the advert temp is harsh in this case. It is perhaps reasonable to remove or moderate the text about the GTFS Group, remove refs to its web site, and keep only that that can be supported by independent sources. The lede could be re-written as the tone, particularly the second part beginning "After processing the fish fillets", with words such as "distinctive", "subtle" and "comes into play", could be the offence that attracted the advert temp. This second part of the lede, re-written, perhaps belongs somewhere further down the article. As the PGI is the raison d'être for the article it should be mentioned in the very first sentence. Acabashi (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2011 (UTC)