Talk:Grana Padano

message: The following part of the article is biased.  "Grana Padano is widely considered inferior in quality than Parmigiano-Reggiano.  Nevertheless many Italians prefer Grana Padano over Parmigiano-Reggiano mainly for the inferior price."  Widely considered by who?  This should be removed unless there is a reference to some sort of cheese authority.  Parmigiano-Reggiano may be better for some uses and not others.  Personally I prefer Grana Padano for its creamer taste.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.154.143 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is strange anyway, if Italians prefer Grana Panado "mainly for the inferior price" then they in fact don't prefer Grana Panado, they just can't afford Parmigiano ! Personally (I'm half Italian) I find that on pasta both are fine, however eaten alone I prefer Parmigiano. Aesma (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an Italian living in Italy. Correct, the Grana Padano is slightly inferior both in quality and price, so many italians tend to use the Parmigiano when its taste is a main component in the dish, like when it's eaten with honey or marmalades, and the Grana Padano if the cheese is a mere ingredient like, for example, in lasagne or omelettes. As for pasta topping, someone use the former and someone the latter.--Rb1205 (talk) 11:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased? 

message: I had removed the controversy section relating to a court case some Grana Padano producers filed against a TV show that said the cheese is a poor man’s Parmigiano based on WP:UNDUE. Some IPs have added it back. We should really avoid WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS for articles like these. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 06:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:MelanieN, the IP keeps adding copyright material to the article despite me opening a talk page discussion. Perhaps the page should be protected again? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 06:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I protected it for a month this time. However, I'm not seeing your talk page discussion, which of course should be here on the article talk page. My own research: The 2016 item is the only one that is sourced to a secondary reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Yes, the discussion I was referring to was this one. I know the 2016 material is reliably sourced, however, my contention is whether this info holds WP:DUEWEIGHT and if a WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION is needed for this article when we should avoid such sections. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the "Controversy section" guideline is to avoid such sections. But it could be just a question of the title; that one item could be retitled something like "in the news". However, I agree that DUE could be an issue with that item if it was reported by only one source. If they resume doing it after the protection expires, this time you should start a separate discussion section, addressed to the person who is disagreeing with you (it's presumably all the same person with a dynamic IP address), notifying them on their talk page about the discussion here (since IPs can't be pinged), and explaining your position in newbie terms. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversies section 

message: This sentence should be improved grammatically: "This hard, crumbly-textured cheese is made with unpasteurized cows' milk that is semi-skimmed through a natural creaming process." JacktheBrown (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence