Talk:Voss (water)

message: Is it packaged in a glass bottle?  Is this is any way unique and would perhaps merit mentioning?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.130.173.37 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably worth noting that the bottle is sold in plastic. It may be sold in glass also, but I've only ever seen it in plastic on the market shelves. 203.206.92.247 (talk) 14:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottle 

message: There has been several edits made to this article by anonymous users, which amount to a whitewash of the product and company, and which ignores stated sources, without providing sources for the opposite viewpoint. There seems good reason to ask whether this article is being edited by employees or affiliates of Voss water.--Barend (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a semi-protected state may be in order.--Barend (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article being edited by affiliates of Voss water? 

message: My name is Rune I Fløgstad and I am the chairman of the board of Voss of Norway ASA, the company that produces and sells VOSS in 49 countries all over the world.
I write this article because the information about “Voss (water)” on the Wikipedia over the last couple of week has been updated and changed (it seams) on the back of the program “En dråpe luksus” aired on the Norwegian television channel TV2 on October 4th.
The essence of the Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia available on the world-wide-web.  One of the communicated “pillars” of Wikipedia is that “Wikipedia has a neutral point of view”.
I am a true believer in Wikipedia as an important, objective and neutral source of information on the world-wide-web. For Voss of Norway ASA as a company it is important to us to ensure that information about our product on Wikipedia is just that – objective and neutral. We do not use, and have not used, the information about our product and our company on Wikipedia as part of our marketing communication.
However, we have from time to time seen that new information on the “Voss (water)” page has not been in accordance with the fundamental “5 pillars” principals to be respected and followed by the Wikipedia community. Thus, on several occasions we have edited and changed submitted information so that the information on the “Voss (water)” is as accurate, objective and neutral as possible.
During the last couple of weeks we have tried to edit the information provided on the “Voss (water)” page. However, as I have found out, our people have not lived up to what is expected of Wikipedia-users when it comes to editing and changing content. For instance we have not provided references that support and substantiate our attempts to edit and correct the information on the “Voss (water)” page.
Thus, below I will attempt to make our view clear (and well referenced) as to the changes and additions (by both us and others) in the text that has occurred over the last couple of weeks. I will naturally welcome Wikipedia-users point of view to this discussion note.
oo0oo
A. Current Wikipedia text: “Voss is a brand of artesian water from Norway, bottled at an allegedly artesian source in Southern Norway.”
VOSS comments/facts:
The TV2 program “En dråpe luksus” (mentioned above) that was aired on Norwegian television on October 4th, makes an allegation that the water from the VOSS source is not an artesian source. Voss has strongly refuted TV 2’s accusations. The foundation for TV2s allegation, and which is expressed in the program, is that since the water is pumped up from the source the source cannot be artesian. TV2 claim that to be artesian source the water naturally (without the help of pumps) should be pushed up to the surface as the water in an artesian source is characterized by having a lower pressure (underground pressure) compared to the pressure at the surface. 
However, both USFDA and the NGU (the Norwegian national institution for knowledge on bedrock, mineral resources, surficial deposits and groundwater) clearly states that a artesian source can be collected with the assistance of external force to enhance the natural underground pressure. Please see the following links to USFDA (see “§165.110-a-2-i” near the top) and the NGU document, which is linked to www.grunnvanninorge.no being an official Norwegian web-site owned by NGU, that confirms our view.
In addition we have had an external water consulting service company that has made a comprehensive review and report concerning the VOSS-source, based on relevant geological tests, analyses and reports, which conclude that the VOSS source is an artesian water source. On the basis of the conclusions from this report the VOSS water is accepted as artesian in the US. In Norway the Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet) has also accepted the conclusions of this report. 
A. VOSS SUMMARY: Thus the correct Wikipedia text should be: “Voss is a brand of artesian water from Norway, bottled at an artesian source in Southern Norway.” 
oo0oo
B. Current Wikipedia text: “The source is located in Iveland municipality in Aust-Agder county, and is the same water that is distributed by the municipality of Iveland as tap water for its inhabitants.[1] Voss water is available in Still and Sparkling in glass bottles ( 375ml and 800ml ) and Still in PET bottles ( 330ml, 500ml and 850ml ). In October 2010, it was revealed that Voss´ water is tap water from Iveland´s water supply.”
VOSS comments/facts:
On the VOSS bottles it is stated that the water comes from the VOSS-source and that the bottling is done at Vatnestrøm - a small community within the Iveland municipality. We have never stated that the VOSS water is bottled at any other place/community/municipality.
The current Wikipedia text says that the VOSS water is tap water from the Iveland water supply. This information is incorrect. The reality is that the Iveland municipality accesses the same source (the VOSS source) to deliver water to approximately 45 households at the small Vatnestrøm community through its own isolated system. Please also note that the municipality treats the water before utilizing it for general consumption.
Thus, although the water comes from the same source, it is incorrect to say that the VOSS water is tap water (see Wikipedia description of “tap water”) from the Iveland’s water supply. The truth is that the water that is put on the VOSS bottles arrive directly from the VOSS-source without being processed or treated, as required by Norwegian law and as regularly inspected by the Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet).
B. VOSS SUMMARY: Thus a neutral Wikipedia text should read: “The source is located in Iveland municipality in Aust-Agder county, and where the municipality accesses the same source to deliver water to approximately 45 households through its own isolated water supply system. Voss water is available in Still and Sparkling in glass bottles ( 375ml and 800ml ) and Still in PET bottles ( 330ml, 500ml and 850ml ).”
oo0oo
C. Current Wikipedia text: “TAP WATER REVELATION. In October 2010, Norwegian television station TV 2 showed a documentary film highlighting the fact that the water bottled by Voss is tap water from the municipal water supply in Iveland. TV 2 also claimed to prove that the water source was not, in fact, artesian, as the marketing of Voss water claims.[4][5][6] The website of Voss water claims that the water source is "protected from pollutants by layers of rock and ice".[7] There is in fact no permanent ice in the vicinity of the water source. Voss water responded with a statement on its website challenging TV 2's claims.[8] The company also employed a high profile Norwegian solicitor to consider legal action against TV 2. The TV channel in turn responded that they stood by all the statements made in the film.[9]”
VOSS comments/facts:
The first 3 sentences of the above Wikipedia text has all been commented and refuted by us under A and B above. 
Sentence 4 and 5 addresses our description of the VOSS-source on the VOSS web-site.
It is a fact that the VOSS-source, in addition to being artesian water, is approved and defined as “spring water” by the Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet). A prerequisite for the Norwegian Food Safety Agency qualification of VOSS as spring water, “kildevann” in Norwegian, is that the source is protected from any kind of pollution. We have naturally provided Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet) with unambiguous documentation that allows them to approve the VOSS-source to comply with the requirements regarding spring water (kildevann).
Thus I find that this proves that the VOSS-source is “protected from pollutants” as described on our web-page. 
As to the statement in sentence 5 that “There is in fact no permanent ice in the vicinity of the water source”, we do not claim that there is a “glacier” (see Wikipedia description of “glacier”) or “permanent ice” in the area. However, factual information about the local community Vatnestrøm is that during winter the area can experience up to one meter of snow during a single snowfall. Every winter the area is covered with snow for a period of time (approx 3 months of snow-covered conditions during the winter of 2010). If it is a common interpretation by most visitors to our web-page that they think of the area where the VOSS-source is located to be covered by a glacier or that the area is snow-covered year round, we should change the wording on our web-page. I would welcome Wikipedia-users feedback if the wording on our web-page could be interpreted that would make the reader think that the surrounding area to the Voss-source is a “permanent-year-round-ice-area”?
C. VOSS SUMMARY: Thus I find that the information in the whole section TAP WATER REVELATION does not meet the Wikipedia “Five pillars” standard. 
Alternatively the section should be rewritten to become neutral as follows: “TAP WATER RELEVATION”. In October 2010, Norwegian television station TV 2 reported that Iveland municipality accesses the VOSS-source to deliver processed and treated water to approximately 45 households through its own isolated system. TV 2 also claimed that the VOSS water source was not, in fact, artesian, as the marketing of Voss water claims.[4][5][6] Voss strongly refuted the TV 2’s accusationsas the VOSS-source has been tested extensively and is acknowledged as an artesian water source according to USFDA definitions.”.The company also employed a high profile Norwegian solicitor to consider legal action against TV 2. The TV channel in turn responded that they stood by all the statements made in the film.[9]”
oo0oo
Closing words: I trust that any reader will find the supplementary information I have provided herein gives a balanced picture of VOSS water. However, I would of course welcome (as also stated earlier in this discussion note), appreciate and await Wikipedia-users point of view to this discussion note.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifrif (talk • contribs) 17:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, certainly appreciate this openness, and hope it means the time of blanket deletions is past. My immediate thoughts are that for me, your text B is acceptable. For text C, I would like "...Voss strongly repudiated TV 2's accusations, claiming the Voss-source has been tested..." etc. And as long as the Voss water-website states that the source is "protected from pollutants by layers of rock and ice", I feel it is relevant to point out that there are no layers of ice on top of the source, as you obviously agree. The heading might well be changed from "Tap water revelation" to "tap water claim" as far as I'm concerned. Finally, I believe we have already got rid of the passage stating that the TV 2 documentary "revealed that Voss water is not from Voss" - you are of course right in stating that it has always been known that Voss water is not from Voss. Those are my thoughts, as one "normal" wikipedia user. (From Voss.)--Barend (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: VOSS response to: "Article being edited by affiliates of Voss water?" 

message: Thank you for your speedy reply and thoughts to my Discussion note which I welcome. I have chosen to wait a few days before giving my reply in case there were any other wikipedia user comments to my Discussion note.
 
RE: TEXT “C”
I would like to give some comments and thoughts to your reply concerning text C as I think this would further clarify any remaining questions, misunderstandings and/or confusions.
The heading on our press release dated October 4th used the word “refuted” and not “repudiated” as we have evidence to support our view as described below.
One such evidence is that we are not only claiming that the VOSS-source has been tested, but that we can show evidence that VOSS water has been approved by the Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet) to meet the Norwegian quality requirements (and thus EU and US quality regulations) that allow the VOSS water to be marketed as “spring water” (“kilde vann” in Norwegian). 
As for TV2’s accusation that VOSS water is “just” tap water, one should first look at the Wikipedia definition of Tap Water and collate that to the approval from the Norwegian Food Safety Agency (Mattilsynet) coupled with the information provided by Iveland municipality on how water from the VOSS-source is channeled to the Vatnestrøm water works vs. how water from the VOSS-source is channeled to the VOSS production line (as also described and referenced under Text “B” in my first Discussion note). Thus the fact of the matter is that VOSS water is NOT Tap Water and that the 45 households at the Vatnestrøm area actually are furtunate to have Iveland municipality provide them with quality, processed water through the local water works that originates from the VOSS-source. From a Voss of Norway ASA point of view the TV2 accusation that VOSS water is Tap Water, is a malicious attempt to degrade the quality of the water from the VOSS-source.
As for your comments to the VOSS web-page description of the VOSS-source, I appreciate your comments and I will make sure we amend the wording in order to eliminate any misconception that the source is covered under a glacier or by (permanent) “ice on top of the source”.
RE: TEXT “A” & “B”
I appreciate your support to my proposed Text “B”.
In the absence of any comment or counter to my proposed Text “A” I choose to believe that you approve of the proposed changes.
SUMMARY
I trust that this Discussion note has provided new information that further support why Voss of Norway ASA refutes the accusations made by TV2 about the quality of the VOSS water.
When I now reread your reply and consider the information provided by me in this new Discussion note, I hope to have cleared up any remaining questions, misunderstandings, and/or confusions. Thus, I am right to conclude that when the description of the VOSS-source at the VOSS web-page is altered such that readers should not be mislead to believe that there is (permanent) “ice on top of the source”, then you would consent to the whole Text “C” be deleted?
I await your feedback and reply.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rifrif (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To add. The Voss representative has provided sources defining artesian sources. This not sufficient to meet WP standards. WP editors are not supposed to draw inferences from the sources (that would constitute original research). What is need here is an independent reliable source stating that the specific source used by VOss Water is artesian. Nutty Professor (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr Fløgstad's assertions would be more believable if his company had taken any action against the TV company. And the constant anonymous editing is a little worrying as well - I think we'd feel a lot more comfortable if Voss employees signed their changes and discussed them on this talk page. I appreciate that Mr Fløgstad has taken the time to come on here and discuss the subject and I hope he will return; after all, he's such a big fan of Wikipedia. Kodabar (talk) 00:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Reply - 10. November 2010''' 

message: Stop blanket reverting sourced claims.
All that the criticism chapter states is factual, you may have rebuttals and different viewpoints to those claims, but that does not nullify them as claims.
I will remind you that mainstream media might also be interested in your activities of editing wikipedia articles to fit your commercial agenda.
Have a nice day
Gillis (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  stop blanket reverting 

message: So no mention of the carbon footprint and criticism the brand has had? Hauling a bulky glass bottle...full of water...from Scandinavia. This product is the fucking Hummer of foreign beverages. --76.115.67.114 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable, secondary source that's commented on this, go ahead and add it to the article.  EEng (talk) 22:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Somebody should add this as a source to the information table on the left: http://vosswater.com/bottled-water-quality-report, sorry if I messed up the formatting here  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.0.2 (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Giant carbon footprint