Talk:Nutella

Chocolate spread?

Is it a chocolate spread or not? Link to chocolate spread keeps being reverted. 71.198.89.109 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, at least it was always what they tell me, let's start:

1- Well, any soft or pasty texture can be regarded as being a spread, although this is too generalized, still, it remains being a spread.

2- According to Nutella story, it was initially block-shaped and it was sliced to spread on bread, later becoming a cream, as everyone knows nowadays, and if you go to the dictionary you will see that "cream" and "spread" are synonyms.

Also, every website or whatever, always refer to Nutella as a spread, in this case, hazelnut. 177.105.90.10 (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

I just can't put the source, because that's not "authoritative", according Wikipedia, what is unfair and needless 177.105.90.10 (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Nutella and Gianduja

My documentation of hazelnuts and cocoa being used together in Piedmont was deleted because it "Seems out of the scope for the Nutella page". Presumably because it ALSO gives info on Gianduja. But the existing entry already mentions the latter and gives the (false) impression that it was invented after World War II.

Basically, the mixture of the two was originally known as gianduja. That already existed as a candy long before the reference given from the Nutella page. It is NOT out of scope for the Nutella page because Nutella itself is said to derive from gianduja.

Maybe my own entry needs to be rewritten. But just deleting it leaves people with the false impression that the product which became Nutella did not exist until after World War II. 23.113.53.110 (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Separated "Pasta" from the link of just gianduja. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't get what's going on here at all. The product in question was called Pasta Gianduja: "He created Pasta Gianduja: a small loaf of chocolate hazelnut paste meant to be sliced and served on bread. The same year he sold an initial batch of 600 pounds of Pasta Gianduja." https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/06/napoleon-nutella/ Gianduja was already a candy at that point, and still is today; not the same thing as a paste made of the two ingredients. And why clarifying this point is considered irrelevant is beyond me. You will see numerous sites claiming that Nutella came about after the idea of cutting chocolate with hazelnuts appeared after WW2, when in fact it existed since just after Napoleon. Why ever would it be considered irrelevant that the mixture from which this paste was made, and the name applied to it, both pre-existed the dates given in the article? 23.113.53.110 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't need that long winded explanation. All it really needs is the link to Gianduja where it is explained. Altered: "...batch of Pasta Gianduja, derived from Gianduja." Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 23:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It needs a longer-winded explanation that what we currently have.

This stuff wasn't created out of the clear blue sky. It originated from a long series of industrial experiments beginning with the Continental System addressing Britain's blockade of Napoleon and became relevant again because of the blockades during World War II. It just needs to be a sentence or two, but both of those need to be linked along with gianduja (chocolate) to give the wp:readers the accurate context for Nutella's creation. (It's interesting to me but perhaps actually outside the scope of the article that the exact same conditions were responsible for the creation of Central Europe's brown hazelnut-heavy form of nougat. It also started around Turin and then just took off more north of the Alps.) — LlywelynII 20:05, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Content removal

@Galilean-moons, can you step out your thinking with your removal in this edit? Surely the neutrality travesty here is referencing "The product was an instant success" to the Nutella website, not citing the generally reputable Elena Kostioukovitch to say it was popular among adults and children on launch, and that among leftists in Italy who subscribed to Anti-Americanism, it was seen as a symbolic counter to an American foodstuff? If I can give you some uppercase, WP:NPOVHOW says "Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." How can we rewrite this so it is neutral? I obviously contest this being unrelated to product history, cultural history is still history. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 18:40, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thanks for raising this. To clarify my reasoning:

The original sentence combined multiple claims without sufficient context and used a broad political label (“leftists”) in a way that implied a unified ideological stance toward a consumer product. That framing is imprecise.

I initially attempted to resolve this by rewriting the sentence into a neutral, descriptive form that framed the peanut-butter comparison as cultural commentary rather than political attribution. That rewrite was reverted on the grounds that the revised wording was not explicitly verified by the source as written.

Given that the remaining version could not be rewritten into a neutral, clearly attributed form without continued disagreement over interpretation, I removed the sentence rather than restore wording that appeared non-neutral and disproportionate to the topic.

I agree that cultural history is history. However, per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, politically framed interpretations need clear attribution and proportionate relevance. In this case, the claim rests on a single, essayistic source and is not essential to the product’s historical overview.

If consensus favours retaining the comparison, I would support a narrowly attributed formulation that avoids broad political labels and clearly reflects the source’s interpretive nature.

Galilean-moons(talk) 18:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

i would strongly encourage you to avoid using large language model generated content while discussing changes with other users, or in basically any context on wikipedia. this response appears very strongly to be that (and GPTZero gives it a 100% probability of AI usage). Blaithnaid (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Blaithnaid The wording reflects my own position and reasoning. If the phrasing or length is an issue, I’m happy to restate it more concisely. Accusations about AI use are a conversational dead end, so I suggest we focus on whether the disputed sentence can be rewritten neutrally and proportionately per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.

Galilean-moons (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Leftists is the term the source uses ("was also prized by nonconformists and leftists"). I'm open to suggestions to different terms.

Yes, I reverted the cultural commentary framing. The source is discussing attitudes, not cultural commentary, so it's not verified.

To clarify your issue with the source, are you taking issue with the claim that "leftists" were fond of Nutella for the anti-American associations they attached? Or are you taking issue with framing the history of Nutella around the response of leftists? I am not sympathetic to the first, but perhaps more to the second; I don't know Kostioukovitch's politics, but given her associations I would not be surprised if she held some form of left/liberal politics. I spoke to Gigi Padovani recently-ish and he was lovely, would you care to check Mondo Nutella: 50 anni di innovazione to see how that framing compares? Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 19:07, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus. ‑‑gurkubondinn 17:31, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Rollinginhisgrave Thanks for clearing that up. I know the source uses that term, but I’m more concerned with whether it’s actually relevant here. Highlighting how one political group felt gives a lot of weight to what seems like a minor aside in a general history. I’d rather leave it out than make it seem more important than it is. If others feel it should be included in some form, I won’t object.

Galilean-moons (talk) 19:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that we aren't highlighting how one political group felt about it, the source is, and we should generally follow that per (more uppercase sorry) WP:BALASP. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 19:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Galilean-moons, I'm going to restore this. I agree that it would be poor if we were putting too much weight on a fact emphasized by just one source, but as far as I can see no effort has been made to see if other sources are making the same framing. Once that is done and we can have a better grasp on the sourcing lay of the land, we can revisit. I have plans for gianduja (chocolate) in the near future (I say), and will be reading sources close to this at that time, so it should be cleared up at least by then if there are issues. Rollinginhisgrave (talk | edits) 07:07, 30 December 2025 (UTC)