Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Schüblig?

The Schüblig stub may need some knowledgeable attention. Talk:Schüblig has further detail. --Kevjonesin (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Panta bhat/archive1 is on. The article is very near to a GA, I believe. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 04:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Food Industry CEO Notability: Wikipedia: Wikiproject Food and drink

Hello Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink. I am transferring a discussion thread to this site to obtain input regarding the potential inclusion of a food-related article. The discussion involves whether CEOs of large food corporations are (or should be) considered sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia bio.

Nick-D has deleted a new bio article. His articulated position is that this individual's entry may not be justified, but he also seems to base his action on the assertion that business executives, in general, are not notable and therefore not worthy of inclusion. That is his understanding of WP:BIO. My perspective is that this person is notable, based on his accomplishments and his role in the success of his company. Furthermore, from the standpoint of precident, there are literally thousands of business executive bios on Wikipedia today, and the bio in question appears more heavily supported and footnoted than the vast majority of listings out there (many of which have no references whatsoever).

Much of our discussion touched on how notabilityshould be interpreted and how unevenly it is applied within Wikipedia ...

Our primary goal is to determine if this article is worthy of inclusion. Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nick. You recently deleted an article for a food industry executive Thomas F. Olin, Jr. on the basis that the person was not notable. Apparently, we are getting mixed signals here, as Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink have been soliciting articles regarding chief/top executives of large national food corporations. Is it possible that you are not aware of this or perhaps there is a certain threshold of corporate size that 'qualifies' the company or the person for an article? Archway Cookies was the third largest cookie company in the United States, with retail brand sales exceeding $300,000,000 per year. Please compare to similar executive article listings: James Jenness-Kellog, John A. Bryant, Paul C. P. McIlhenny-Tobasco sauce. C. Joseph Genster-Diet drinks. John F. Grundhofer-BJs Restaurants, Michael W. Rice-Utz Foods, Thomas A. Garrett-Arbys, Sally J. Smith-Buffalo Wild Wings, Edmund A. Gann-Seafood, James B. Adamson, Dan Bane-Trader Joes, Lee Bickmore-Nabisco, Salli Setta-Red Lobster, Bernard D. Rubin-Tootsie Roll, Robert Holland (executive)-Ben & Jerry's ... and many other executives of varying importance and notoriety ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_chief_executives_of_food_industry_companies

Who are you referring to by "we"? This article didn't include anything which constituted a claim of notability, or references which looked at all likely to meet WP:BIO. Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The 'mixed signals' statement could have been couched in the third-person, I guess. I think that Wikiproject-Food was making the assertion that Chief Executive Officers of the largest food corporations in America are by their very nature, notable. If you perused the articles from the Wikipedia list of 'American Chief Executives of Food Industry Companies', their notability consists of the highest position they held (in most cases Chairman or CEO), the size of the company they managed, and perhaps the college they attended. There seems to be a disparity between the standards for these executives who already have established Wikipedia articles and the subject of this discussion. It appears that such a deletion decision is ad-hoc, potentially capricious, and is dependent on the personal opinion of a particular editor. In the case of Mr. Olin, his notability includes restructuring and doubling the size of the business in nine years, and building the third-largest cookie company in the United States (behind Nabisco and Keebler ... and outperforming Pepperidge Farm, Sunshine, Mothers, Stella-Doro, Little Debbie, etc.) as well as driving brand sales to more than a third of billion dollars annually. This performance certainly meets that of the majority of those executives with Wikipedia bios. The question is, then, how do we move this forward according to standards previously and consistently used for other CEOs and avoid editor arbitrariness? Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Can you please refer me to the relevant part of Wikiproject food? Also, who are you referring to with "we"? In regards to the article, please consult WP:BIO: it's not enough to assert that someone is important as Wikipedia's inclusion standards for people ultimately boil down to the availability of detailed coverage of them as a person. Nick-D (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The use of the term 'we' was to assert that there were mixed signals between you and me, regarding the definition and interpretation of notability. It is clear that a person can be considered 'notable' by Wikipedia merely by being associated with a larger organization. Every NFL player who ever existed has a Wikipedia article (1,493 Green Bay Packers alone), even those who never played in a single NFL game (for example: Tony F. Elliott). They are considered notable for no other reason than they were on a team. Same for MLB baseball (three examples: Tim Lahey, Michael Antonini and Fred Van Dusen). Since there are many, many anonymous athletes who qualify for Wikipedia articles simply because they played (or not) on a particular sports team, notability takes on another context altogether, doesn't it? And why only sports? Can you explain this apparent double-standard with WP:BIO when it applies to Chief Executives of the largest and most elite corporations/brands in the country? Whether you know their names or not? Have they not also achieved the most elite status within their given industries? Not only are they notable for building brands that have become household names, but I would submit to you that their individual achievements are/were highly significant and impactful, not only within their given organization, but also to the public at large. Certainly more than an athlete who never played a game. Thus, based on this interpretation of notability, and the belief that notability standards should be applied evenly throughout all of Wikipedia, a top executive of a major national brand company should certainly qualify as notable.

More specifically, and pertaining to this particular article, I provided you with a list of hundreds of similar existing Wikipedia articles of corporate CEO-peers, with virtually identical background descriptions as the subject, and you have not been able to articulate why they qualified while this one does not. You mention lack of 'detailed coverage' of the subject. Of the dozen-plus references provided within the article, no less than six of them specifically featured (and/or profiled) the subject, including several trade journals, and newspapers (i.e. Battle Creek Enquirer, Ashland Times Gazette, Columbus Dispatch, Associated Press). At the same time, several of the hundreds of business executives with existing Wikipedia articles (link above, including those I listed earlier) have far fewer references (none in many cases). Why are WP:BIO standards not evenly applied in this case? Nick, maybe it might make sense to involve others who may be able to assist? Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink? FMIArchive (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Of the reliable sources cited in User:FMIArchive/sandbox/Thomas F. Olin, Jr., only the first appears to be focused on Mr Olin (the articles and videos by him aren't useful for establishing notability). As for the comparisons you note, Wikipedia has lots of poor quality articles so unfortunately it can be misleading to compare prospective new articles with existing ones (please also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for the consensus view on this kind of thing). Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

As you have stated above, you acknowledge that you have unilaterally decided to hold this article to a higher standard than other, virtually identical, articles that have been accepted by Wikipedia. If certain articles meet Wikipedia's standards while they do not seemingly meet your own, is it possible that your ideals, as you interpret them, are not consensus-driven? It may be possible that you generally do not think that businesspeople, such as this subject, are (or should be) notable, as you personally view it. However, there may be other editors more directly involved in the topic than you are, who may believe otherwise. This is why I have requested third-party involvement.

Based on your comments regarding references, I have reviewed them again. At the outset, lets at least agree that this article has far more references than the majority of those articles listed in the Wikipedia "American Chief Executives of Food Industry Companies" index. You probably have not read this article's references, so it would be difficult for you to know that references #1 and #2 are both specific to Mr. Olin. Reference #3 is a video presentation of Mr. Olin, speaking at the company's annual meeting and outlining his rationale and strategies for restructuring the corporation (essentially what enabled the company to double is size during his tenure; to more than $300,000,000 annually and establishing Archway as one of the largest cookie brands in the world) ... by the way, Wikipedia is rife with virtually millions of references presenting a person's own work on their own bio page, either in written, photographic or video form and it is frequently used to help establish that person's notability - everybody from Albert Einstein to Donald Trump to Barack Obama to Andrew Carnegie. Reference #4 is a newspaper interview discussing the company's performance as well as another profile of Mr. Olin. The next several references provide credible evidence of the results achieved by Mr. Olin during his tenure (including an Associated Press report and interview); this is often provided in good Wikipedia business bios to substantiate individual claims. Reference "Fat Free Fervor" contains both an interview and more profile information on Mr. Olin. The remaining references are 'fact-check' resources to corroborate personal activities (i.e. publications, board involvement, etc).

Would it be wise to present this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink to ascertain what the standards are for CEO listings and whether this proposed listing, or some form of it, conforms to them? Wouldn't this be the best way assure that we have a consensus and resolve this to everyone's satisfaction? Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Articles aren't "accepted" on Wikipedia: this is a user-driven "Web 2.0" website, and stuff gets added without much oversight. Sometimes material which doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is spotted and deleted, and sometimes it isn't, so don't read anything into what is and isn't existent without considering the underlying policies (WP:BIO here). Also, attempting to lecture me about Wikipedia's notability criteria when you obviously haven't actually read WP:BIO (otherwise you wouldn't be claiming that primary sources can be used to meet it) is impolite. If you'd like to raise this elsewhere, by all means do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:BIO policies and understand the position on primary sourcing. Nevertheless, primary sources are ubiquitous throughout Wikipedia. If a person has written an autobiography, it is almost certain to be included in Wikipedia references in his/her bio article. The same holds true for primary photographic/video sources as well. In the case of Mr. Olin, this is irrelevant because the majority of references are not from primary sources, but trade journals and newspapers. I did not attempt to lecture you in our discussion, but tried to make a logical case for inclusion. The objective was not to offend but to share with you how notability seems to be viewed in the context of large /major brand companies and their top executives. There are obviously distinct differences between your interpretation of this and others, as evidenced not only by the examples I provided, but the thousands of business executive bios that exist already within Wikipedia. It seems that in your opinion, virtually none of them should qualify as notable, and that somehow the majority of them slid through the cracks.

As far as I understand it, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink was established to help Wikipedia provide a more informative and comprehensive reference database on the subject of food and drink. Part of that ongoing effort is to include reference articles relating to important contemporary food brands, their companies, and the executives who shaped them. These executives are notable. They have created food and beverage brands that are part of our everyday lives. I understand that Wikipedia could potentially be abused by those attempting to use it as an online "Who's Who", and, Nick, I think that is where your concerns lie. A line should probably be drawn somewhere. But if Wikipedia can accommodate bios for all 1,439 Green Bay Packers (many of whom played only a game or two) then Wikipedia can certainly accommodate bios for the top executives of the largest food brands in the U.S. and/or the world.

In the case of Mr. Olin, he was a Co-Chief Executive Officer and President of one of the top three cookie brands (Archway Cookies) in the United States and manufacturer of the number one volume Oatmeal and Holiday cookie brands in the world. During his tenure with the company, he doubled brand sales and market share, and he increased retail brand sales to nearly a third of a billion dollars annually. This has been corroborated by third-party industry journals, as well as worldwide media. As I had provided previously, take the time to make comparisons with this list of existing Wikipedia food executive bios: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_chief_executives_of_food_industry_companies

We both now seem to agree that this needs to move to another venue. I will send our discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink and solicit their advice. Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 16:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

• FMIArchive The article to examine is at User:FMIArchive/sandbox/Thomas_F._Olin,_Jr.. If you want me to make this live then I will edit it and make it live.

Consider re-examining what Nick is saying. Please check WP:42 for a summary of the standard Wikipedia articles have to meet. If this article goes live, delete all sources which are not about this person, or are written by this person or his financial collaborators, then deleted all content not backed by sources. Not much will be left. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

After checking the article I see a non-top-level executive (= man with a job), co-owner in a geographical limited franchise and some memberships. To my opinion the named brands are more important than mr. Olin. So, to my opinion, mr. Olin is not notable enough for an article (based on the present version of the article) The Banner talk 17:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that CEOs of large corporations can certainly qualify for inclusion within Wikipedia on the basis of their business achievements. Chief Executive Officers are the highest-level executives in business, other than Chairman, perhaps ... (not really sure what the previous editor was referencing). Generally speaking, it makes sense to establish 'parameters' of inclusion, specific to CEOs of food companies (i.e. corporate size or brand market share or rank within their sector, or other measurable performance factors)? As it stands now, evaluation for qualification for inclusion devolves into opinion and conjecture (see below). One person's 'important' achievement is not another's. Who is to say whether tabasco sauce is more important than cookies? Furthermore, is it possible to comprehend that there might be a latent undercurrent among some editors who maintain a dim view of corporate executives, corporations, and/or capitalism in general, who might prefer to prevent inclusion of such people from Wikipedia? For these reasons, there is a need for objective measurement and inclusion. I think we can at least start with the idea that if a brand/company is worthy of Wikipedia inclusion, then certainly its leadership could be.

Let's talk WP:42 and WP:BIO. Specifically, Wikipedia has no unique standard for business executive bios WP:BIO. For porn stars, yes. For athletes, yes. For criminals, yes. But not for business executives. Thus executives must meet basic criteria for inclusion. If a CEO drives his company to perform among the largest volume (top two or three) and most recognized brands in his industry, with several of his/her products ranked number one in the world, it must be argued that this person: Made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field ... as clearly stated in #2 of Additional Criteria Wikipedia: Notability (people). On this basis, the person would likely qualify for inclusion, based on Wikipedia's own notability credentials. If these claims are substantiated by independent citations; including respected trade journals (i.e. Milling & Baking News), and mainstream newspapers and news sources such as Columbus Dispatch, Battle Creek Enquirer, Associated Press, and others ... then, according to Wikipedia standards, Wikipedia: Notability (people)-(Basic Criteria), as well as WP:42, notability credentials are corroborated, and inclusion should be affirmed. This is the best and most objective way to look at it. One of the complications in play, however, is that some editors, without knowledge or expertise within that specific field, might potentially make visceral judgment-calls based on their own concept of notability, for whatever reason, and then attempt to apply generic WP:BIO rules in order to justify deletion. In some cases, editor recommendations for deletion are made without reading the resource material at all, but instead are following a generalized notion of what they think is notable. These actions, of course, would be contrary to Wikipedia's specifically articulated rules of notability. Ultimately, it really comes down to the concept of specific field ... and the best way to address that, under current circumstances, is with independent reliable resources. More than enough of them have been provided in Mr. Olin's case. FMIArchive (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blunt question, what is your relation with mr. Olin jr.? The Banner talk 22:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed Banner, a good question. As most of Mr Olin Sr.'s page seems to have been written by Mr Olin Jr. there is clearly some degree of fuzziness where COI is concerned. Some clarification and assurances are certainly desirable. On another topic, FMIArchive, you invoke criteria #2 of WP:ANYBIO. Therefore, you obviously believe that some of the sources you provide demonstrate that Olin Jr. has "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians." Which? Pyrope 23:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not Mr. Olin. I do know him through the food trade. Most people in the cookie industry did in the 1990s. Pyrope, I believe that WP:BIO and WP:42 both confirm that in addition to books, periodicals and newspapers are perfectly acceptable as independent reliable resources. Most contemporary people listed in Wikipedia bios do not have history books written about them, by historians. Blunt question to you, there seems to be a tremendous double-standard here, considering the threshold that Mr. Olin must hurdle versus many of those listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_chief_executives_of_food_industry_companies , why is this the case? Is it your intention to delete hundreds, if not thousands of executive bios (many which have far fewer or no references at all)? For example: ... James Jenness-Kelloggs, John A. Bryant, Paul C. P. McIlhenny-Tobasco sauce. C. Joseph Genster-Diet drinks. John F. Grundhofer-BJs Restaurants, Michael W. Rice-Utz Foods, Thomas A. Garrett-Arbys, Sally J. Smith-Buffalo Wild Wings, Edmund A. Gann-Seafood, James B. Adamson, Dan Bane-Trader Joes, Lee Bickmore-Nabisco, Salli Setta-Red Lobster, Bernard D. Rubin-Tootsie Roll, Robert Holland (executive)-Ben & Jerry's. I also noticed that neither of you argued with the voracity of the case I made regarding the subject's qualifying for inclusion (based on Wikipedia notability criteria), but instead have chosen to question the character of this editor. Does this mean that you are predisposed to having an opinion in this matter? FMIArchive (talk) 23:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, my comments were directly questioning his notability. As far as our questioning of his notability goes, please see WP:OTHERCRAP. There are only so many editors and only so much time; some crap slips through, some floats to the top and gets noticed. Welcome to life. Regarding his notability, I wanted you to identify which of the sources that you have cited are the ones you believe to comply with WP:ANYBIO. You haven't done this. Contemporary people may not have historical tomes written about them, but they do have things like in-depth profiles written in national newspapers. A quick mention in the local paper isn't on par. By the way, two tips for the ongoing debate: First, WP:42 is a simplified guide for new editors, not a distinct policy. You would be best advised not to cite it. Second, evasive answers to direct questions are not going to make your case more credible. Pyrope 05:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You did not answer my question, so I repeat it: what is your relation with mr. Olin jr.? The Banner talk 00:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am almost certain I answered it. How about taking a pass at my questions? Or at least justify why this article, amongst all the others virtually identical to it, has been singled out. Help me understand this. Let's try a comparative analysis with any of those existing Wikipedia bios listed above. Please show me. Thanks. FMIArchive (talk) 02:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to you on my talk page, Wikipedia articles need to stand on their own legs in regards to establishing notability, so referring to other articles (which may or may not meet WP:BIO) isn't helpful here. It's not correct that this article was "singled out" - articles on non-notable people are constantly being deleted (for instance, please see the current nominations for speedy deletion [1] - noting that these change rapidly as articles are deleted or judged to not be eligible for this form of deletion - and the many longer-form deletion discussions of biographies underway at any given point in time [2]). I appreciate that you're disappointed that the article you created was deleted, but it was a routine act given its content. If the article doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria (as I think is clearly the case), there's no barrier at all to you using the draft on other websites. Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D, this article does stand on its own. It does qualify for inclusion, based on WP:BIO, WP:42, and WP:Notability. The Wikipedia notability page states very clearly that if a person makes a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field it is sufficient criteria for inclusion. If a CEO substantially grows his business to where it is one of the top three largest in the United States in his industry, and is the largest producer in the world of some of his products, then most certainly his contributions are widely recognized, especially within his specific field. Can you at least agree to that? When these claims are substantiated by multiple media sources that Wikipedia already widely acknowledges are legitimate, then there is no reason not for inclusion. Yes, this article has been singled out. It qualifies for inclusion, according to every rule written by Wikipedia. Yet certain editors have taken it upon themselves, based on their own interpretation of notability, and perhaps other personal rationale, to make judgments outside the framework of the rules set forth by Wikipedia. FMIArchive (talk) 11:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FMIArchive I think that the article can go live because it seems to meet WP:GNG. If someone disputes that then they can put it through the deletion discussion process later, but for now, I made it live at Thomas F. Olin, Jr..

I agree with Nick-D and Pyrope that many of the sources do not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. I removed the ones that seemed to not meet that standard and the information associated with those sources, as well as all information without a source. The sources which remain seem to be about a company and not the person who is the subject of the article, but I will assume good faith that they are as you insist that they are.

I do not think the conversation was going in a productive direction because I think there was a misunderstanding on both sides of what criteria was being examined. I hope all sides can be satisfied with this outcome. I think this is a viable Wikipedia article now and I hope future revision can proceed more smoothly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry (talk), thank you for your help. I am grateful for your edit assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FMIArchive (talk • contribs) 12:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI: This discussion is mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Threats by Tolinjr. The Banner talk 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Saffron FAR

I have nominated Saffron for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Why did this project tag the page for Water and Sanitation Program?

I am just wondering why the page on Water and sanitation program was tagged by this project? Was that more of a coincidence rather than a deliberate choice? I had thought it was a mistake and had deleted the tag.EvM-Susana (talk) 13:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Water is one of the most important and fundamental parts of the human diet, so that is why it was tagged. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 04:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, water is very important in our diet, but then there are other more important pages to tag, such as drinking water (which you have already tagged) or tap water or water well or groundwater. It just seems a bit arbitrary to single out one particular organization dealing with providing water supply and sanitation in developing countries, namely Water and sanitation program and then even giving it importance "high". In that case you should really also tag World Health Organization. More inspiration for important water-related articles can be taken from here: Wikipedia:WikiProject International Development or from Wikipedia:WikiProject Sanitation. I just think it's odd to pick out this particular one (WSP) which I think is not the most important one if you want to cover water as a content in your Wiki project. Just saying... :-) EvM-Susana (talk) 06:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

'Classic cuisine" versus those of "New cuisine"; it's both regional and global; i.e. California Cuisine, New American, Nouvelle French, etc.

Take a consideration of the differences between such topics and articles as Cuisine of the United States; New American cuisine; Cuisine of California; and California Cuisine. Then read this:

"Nouvelle cuisine (French, "new cuisine") is an approach to cooking and food presentation in French cuisine. In contrast to cuisine classique, an older form of haute cuisine, nouvelle cuisine is characterized by lighter, more delicate dishes and an increased emphasis on presentation."

Many of you need to acknowledge these phenonena . There is a certain imagination and level of comprehension missing here… In ANY cuisine these days, it should be readily recognizable that there is a more contemporary culture and understanding between what's always been regarded as "traditional" or "classic" (or even "high") cuisine, versus that which has become known as Nouvelle/New Cuisine. It shouldn't matter which "cuisine" of which region of the world we're talking about. This is happening in many places. Indeed, Americans use these "French" terms, too, but sometimes we create new ones like "New American" to differentiate ourselves (specifically) from not only "classic American," but even that of Europe and namely French "Nouvelle" or "Classique." After all, most Americans would never say "American Nouvelle" and American Classique."

I don't want to re-hash this conversation again and at length; so, please see my comments at Talk:California_cuisine; i.e., under "1 Merge discussion" and "2 Disambiguation line, noting readers between "California Cuisine" and "Cuisine of California"; Larger regards, w/ all Nouvelle/New Cuisine."

Meanwhile, I do agree this article for New American cuisine, and the others said as related, need to be developed. For some reason, they're considered low on priority. And within the main article of Cuisine of the United States, "New American Cuisine" is a mere sentence (or so) mention, including a citation to a rather unsubstantial blog. It really needs to do much, much better than that. New American cuisine is more than just a "passing trend." It is very common for restaurants today to describe themselves as "New American," if not mixing in other options. There's also many cookbooks and websites with such recipes, titles and descriptions. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I commented there. This seems like WP:OR. A cited source would resolve the issue, whereas it seems like the discussion is talk without referring to sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A citation for what? What have I left out that does not have a citation in the above? All that I'm talking about, here, is that of citations. And I've repeated them over and over again. I've actually spelled them out for you. How much more specific does it get than that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying. First, it's in part that I'm pointing to many repeated comments and seeming misunderstandings of the use of terms such as "New American Cuisine" and "California Cuisine" that misattribute these phenomena, aside from their many applications, contributions and recipes, etc.; whereas, that's despite the fact that there are indeed points made and even references confirming those and points said above. Next, this problem that I'm describing seems structurally biased; that is, not always within the text and citations of articles; but in the overall cross-referencing, project development and even the marking of them with such status as "Redirect-Class" or "Start class"; whereas, some of them may not even have a rating on the 'importance scale," whatsoever. Nevertheless, all you need do is read the two short paragraphs of New American cuisine to see my point. There is an obvious correlation and countless threads... and it's indeed noted. But, somehow, the overall food project (globalized) is not recognizing it. Like I said, I do agree that the articles can be developed much more; but, it's not as though they aren't making their points. So, because they're not well developed, some readers (and editors) are not always comprehending the breadth of the issue, overlooking their significance. These articles are "behind the curve" from the others, but to abandon them or think that they're not important is absurd. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero Likewise, I fail to understand you. I will repeat my request in another way trying to respond to you:

1. please find an authoritative published source
2. summarize what that source says, then cite it
3. assert that your source is either aligned with all other sources or that it supersedes them
4. Check other people's comments in response to point 3; if others agree then make all the changes you want

I am not sure I understand you, but if I had to guess, I think you may have the belief that opinions or expertise hold weight here, which is not the case. On Wikipedia, editing is more like copying and pasting content in a language that the editor does not understand. Rather than relying on expertise of the editors, we rely on the expertise in the sources we cite, and you seem to not be citing any sources. Per WP:V you have to cite a source. Are you in agreement with that? Can you provide a source? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm further baffled. What do you mean "and you seem to not be citing any sources." What are you talking about? In what sense? Where? how? Ca.papavero (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

In short: you have to provide reliable sources for the points you have given. The Banner talk 19:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

These points, and citations, are already there. As I've said at Talk:Jeremiah Tower and so on, I'll be adding in more. It's not unsaid or unfounded. Just unrecognized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 20:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

To be true, I just reverted your edits on Jeremiah Tower as they are conflicting with the source given. The Banner talk 21:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please show me your so-called source from that sentence. Also please show me a valid quotation from that source. I believe your reversal is unwarranted. I changed the wording of the sentence because it does not have a citation behind it. Then I also noted that at the article's talk page. Plus, more than that, I also noted that I have more resources coming on the way. And you overlooked all of that. I don't think that's appropriate. Ca.papavero (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That "so called source" is the first source given in the article. And the quote is; Years later, people still debate whether Tower or Waters invented California cuisine.. The Banner talk 23:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That sentence is nowhere quoted in the article. More over, that sentence nowhere uses the word "credited"… not even its fragment that you include here. If you read the rest of the paragraph from that news article, it goes on to say: "Years later, people still debate whether Tower or Waters invented California cuisine. Likely it was a synergy of talent colored by the state of California's food in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Laura Chenel was starting to market her goat cheese. Bruce Aidells was showing up at the back doors of restaurants selling andouille sausage he'd made in his kitchen." So, I would say that my judgement is right. The passage from this supporting citation (from which you are judging) does not provide an outright and "notable" claim that's being made in the lead sentence of this Wikipedia article; whereas, said Wikipedia article has wrongfully re-interpreted that passage to state that Tower et al. are "generally credited with developing the culinary style known as California cuisine." This is why I changed the lead to read, "Jeremiah Tower (born 1942) is an American celebrity chef who, along with Wolfgang Puck, Alice Waters, and Jonathan Waxman, is generally associated with the development of the newer culinary style known as California cuisine (as per se, contrasted with more classic Cuisine of California)." My own editing doesn't negate Tower et al. contributions, but it counterbalances and takes into account these other considerations. You reverted that, to which I believe is a mistake. Even if I were to go with just this one source, which is acknowledged by yourself, I think it would ironically validate my point, not your own.Ca.papavero (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I believe this conversation about Jeremiah Tower should be occurring at that article's talk page, not here. The point of this entry at this "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject" page is to address the wider context of "new cuisine" styles versus that of "classic cuisine." And again, that idea is not unfounded, nor unsaid from existing Wikipedia articles.Ca.papavero (talk) 04:04, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to quote everything. The article said that Tower is generally credited with developing the culinary style known as California cuisine.. That is consistent with what the source said: Years later, people still debate whether Tower or Waters invented California cuisine.. Not with your watered down version you made of it. The Banner talk 07:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not see a source backing the original claim which started this discussion. For changes to be made, start over and do this:

1. here on this talk page write the fact to be added to the article
2. cite the source from which that fact came

This is not supposed to be complicated or take an explanation. Content in Wikipedia is checked to see whether the facts here match the sources cited and I am not seeing that happen for the original statement. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, this is a discussion that should have happened at Talk:Jeremiah Tower, not here. I have already said what is the original point of this entry and how it's digressed, namely from comments by User:Bluerasberry and User:The Banner. In fact, it's been turned into the main point, which is disrespectful to the conversation. I don't know how to suggest moving it to the other page at this point.Ca.papavero (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I greatly disagree. What is "watered down" is when an article cites references, but subjectively interprets them and leaves out significant quotations that actually show a difference of opinion, as well as erroneously summarizing the works. That's the case here. You are leaving out the the counter points of view that are (in fact) not my own, but those of the writers and opinions expressed with the source(s) that you are citing. You are simply trying to make it seem like its my own POV, which is not at all the case. The two other sentences in this citation (that you mention) use the word "credit" in ways that hardly gives you leeway to interpret it your own way. The first sentence says "There were former cooks and waiters, many of whom credit their cars and condos to the $400 a night they made in Stars' heyday. Many describe their tenure at Stars as the best and the worst time of their lives." The second says "1976: Tower prepares a California regional dinner at Chez Panisse that many credit as the birth of California cuisine. He leaves the restaurant a year later." One footnoted sentence that timelines a meal that he made (in retrospect) is not enough to make a generalized claim, especially when it goes against the rest of the article and other works. See the other quotation of which we just priorly discussed above. Also, recognized and quote the whole sentence (or paragraph), not just a fragment thereof, when its significant and relevant.

By the way, the term "California cuisine" is only mentioned 4 times in the article (8 times for the word "California" itself); whereas, at one point, it's actually said: "They came to eat Tower's version [emphasis added] of the new California cuisine, marvel at his brilliant sauces and giggle over late-night hot dogs served with sauerkraut and Champagne." Those other versions could be those of his peers; but, as noted in the article, it was also a greater trend beyond notable chefs, that was occurring at that time.Ca.papavero (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a personal attack, and it only serves a a means for you to overlook all that's said above, as well that which is therein cited.Ca.papavero (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero I apologize, but I fail to understand what you are saying. I acknowledge your concern but I do not know how to respond or what to do next. Consider going to the WP:TEAHOUSE.

I have asked you for a sentence and citation and do not know why you do not provide them. I regret that I have failed to understand you or to effectively communicate - it is my failure and I am sorry. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A citation for what? What have I left out that does not have a citation in the above? All that I'm talking about, here, is that of citations. And I've repeated them over and over again. I've actually spelled them out for you. How much more specific does it get than that?Ca.papavero (talk) 20:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero I am not very bright. Can you please put the citation, a one-sentence fact derived from the source cited, and nothing else except your signature immediately below? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

See my question directly above (20:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)) your request. Also, you have not regarded points made prior to that. At this point, this discussion has become rediculously reduced, trivialized, confused and diverted. I think you should re-read the above and address the points.Ca.papavero (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero I acknowledge not regarding your points because as I said I cannot understand you. All information put into Wikipedia has to be followed by a citation. The sentence that you wish to put into Wikipedia must be followed by a citation. I neither know what fact you wish to put into Wikipedia nor what source you wish to use to back that fact. I ask for one fact and one source.

As best I can tell, you wish to add information to Wikipedia without a citation, which is against the WP:V rule. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Cochineal FAR

I have nominated Cochineal for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Moutai"

Maotai has been requested to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:Maotai -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Assistance w/ Updates on the Breyers Article as a Result of a WP:COI

In reviewing the Breyers article, I have noticed a number of inaccuracies including the wrong logo, misspellings, listing of products that no longer exist, confusion over which products are actually "frozen dairy deserts" vs. "ice cream" and in some instances lack of references.

At the end of the day, I know Breyers would like to see its article be of the highest quality possible and have all the information it includes fall in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

I am wondering if we might get an editor's assistance to make some of the updates that are needed given my WP:COI. I am happy to work it through however you would like. I can identify the specific issues and provide references and leave it up to another editor for consideration to make the changes or not. Alternatively, I am happy to make the updates but would appreciate a watchful eye to ensure all the changes are in line with Wikipedia guidelines.

Following is a sample of some of the updates:

• Logo: Needs to be updated to reflect new logo that was introduced in 2013
• Date of introduction cited in info box should be 1866 vs. 1908 (http://2paragraphs.com/2013/06/the-melting-of-a-great-american-brand-breyers-ice-cream/)
• Intro Paragraph: Breyers is no longer a part of Good Humor Brand, but part of Unilever Refreshments Unit, name is just Breyers since it relocated from Greenbay, Wisconsin (http://www.breyers.com/home/about)
• Products: Many product names are incorrect, have been discontinued and not correctly identified

Appreciate any guidance or support you can offer. SusanChana (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SusanChana It is really hard. Every day a huge number of brands come to Wikipedia wanting their content changed and the volunteer community here cannot manage it. Depressingly, practically all people affiliated with companies just want to improve their article and leave, while practically all Wikipedians are here to share general knowledge. If you want the surest way forward in accord with Wikipedia community rules, it would be to edit articles away from your company's field of interest until you understand Wikipedia community guidelines and the philosophy of sharing information here. The time commitment for this is probably not less than 40 hours. I have been on wiki regularly since 2008 and have told 100+ marketing people that and have never seen 1 stick around, and so far as I know, other Wikipedians have the same experience. It is kind of you to say on your user page that "Looking forward to getting to work on articles on which I don't have a WP:COI". I hope that works out. In our newspaper you can read what other companies do at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2015-04-22/Special_report.

Thanks for coming to a WikiProject. I rarely see communications professionals do that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx Bluerasberry! Most of them probably don't go to Wikiproject articles because they haven't figured out that they can. I have spent many, many hours on Wikipedia learning about how things work, but have been a bit nervous to make any updates. But I need to get past that you are right! In fact, was just looking at the Appliances article contemplating how I could help. So I will commit to make that effort. I promise.

However, that still leaves me with the WP:COI issue on other articles that I need to get addressed. So I hope you don't mind if I continue to reach out to others that may be able to help? SusanChana (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

One other question. To get my feet wet on the editing side, would it be strange to find other people that have WP:COI's on articles and look at what they proposing and make those edits if I am confident they fall within guidelines? Might be another good way for me to start. If you agree, any guidance on how I might find them? Thx again SusanChana (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SusanChana Yes, feel free to ask anyone to help you with anything. The Wikipedia community members have good boundary setting practices and if you ask it is fine - people will just say no or ignore if they are not interested. Someone might help. Even consider going to the WP:TEAHOUSE and getting help, which is a forum for beginner help.

Yes, consider doing quid pro quo exchange with anyone else in your situation. Having another set of eyes on an issue relieves a lot of the usual pressures and problems associated with COI editing. In my opinion, if you can convince another COI editor to trade places with you and review each other's content, you will get a valuable experience in learning what it is like to review potentially promotional content from a Wikipedian perspective. Unfortunately these kinds of requests for help are not well sorted, but you can find what reports exist at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Besides the active complaints, consider going into the archives of this board and messaging people who posted months ago. They might still be interested after not having found support.

Thanks for putting some creativity and consideration in what you are doing. I also care about the appliances article. Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living is mostly dead but articles on household appliances are very popular in Wikipedia, and I wish they were better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thx. Think I will be careful with the WP:COI quid pro quo thing. Especially with PR people like me they will abuse it and make changes for each other like mad:) I'm only going to do it to learn the ropes of editing and won't even do any reviews of people from my same firm, etc. Definitely not going to ask them to look at my stuff. Too risky and I'm not sure I'd trust their feedback:) So grateful for all your help! SusanChana (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SusanChana I'd be willing to help you. I see you have started a section on the Breyers talk page -- I'll go post there. valereee (talk) 11:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Created Page 100 Pipers

I have created page on Pernod Ricard's whisky brand 100 Pipers. I have some problem in licensing image of a unit of 100 Pipers whisky. Can someone help me for that? Also is there any available source on how much cases of 100 Pipers sold each year, I have searched for it but not got any link till now. Those who are interested kindly review the page. Thank you.--Human3015 21:46, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cosmo

Could I please have a bit of feedback on whether or not this is notable?

• User:Anna Frodesiak/Green sandbox

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak It seems not notable because the sources cited do not feature this location as their subject, except for one WP:SPS blog which does not meet WP:RS. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Good points, Bluerasberry. I agree. I wonder, though, if I'm just not able to find other sources that are out there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food photo contest for Indian Cuisine

Frameless

Hi, we are running a photo contest called Wiki Loves Food featuring Indian Cuisine. Could you please announce this in WikiProject Food and Drinks related portals? Thanks.--Ravishankar (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Brown Derby (company) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Brown Derby (company) to be moved to Brown Derby (liquor company). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pesarattu listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pesarattu to be moved to Mung bean dosa. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:03, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC on consensus statement of relative safety of currently marketed GM food

See here Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly controversial merger proposal

I've proposed that Coney Island hot dog, Hot wiener, and Carolina style be merged into Chili dog. Discussion is at Talk:Chili_dog.

Right now we've got variations on the chili dog which all include some form of chili over hot dog on bun with onions and mustard and optional cheese in four different articles. There are definitely variations in the regional styles which should be retained, but the basic idea could be a lot clearer and more comprehensively presented in a single article with sections for each regional specialty. But I suspect this is going to be controversial, as of course people are protective of their regional variants and may want them to retain a full separate article for themselves rather than being redirected to an article where they're a section. I'd like to request comment from other WikiProject Food and drink editors. valereee (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dog Meat Festival

Comments welcome at Talk:Dog Meat Festival#The name of this article.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)