Talk:Perpetual stew/Archive 1

Archive 1

A note

There is a bar in Tucson, AZ, which is supposed to be the oldest bar in the city, that apparently has a perpetual stew that has been going for a VERY long time. If we can find out the particulars and a source, this might be good as an example. ike9898 16:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks for a warning. Next time I am in Tucson AZ I'll be very very careful. 46.138.94.67 (talk) 10:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Perpignan Stew?

The line about there being a stew brewing in Perpignan from the 15th century til WWII seems poorly supported. It only has one source, and is mentioned only in passing. Does anyone have any other sources for this, or for any verified stews that are or were hundreds of years old? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2407:7000:9B93:1A00:1919:2B95:648B:D076 (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Source claiming that these things may not have actually existed

https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/perpetual-stew-history-recipes-myth

©Geni (talk) 08:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

IT'S A FAAAAAAAAAAKE!!!!

This whole entire article (and its "sources") are based on some nostalgic fantasy scenario written in a cookbook from the 70's. Typical Wikipedia quality control!

First off: Maintaining a roiling fire 24/7 in the middle ages would have been prohibitively expensive, negating any alleged "economic advantage".

Secondly: They would have had to replenish the water constantly. Potable water was a precious commodity in the middle ages.

Thirdly: Doing so would have killed any flavor and/or nutritional content that the stew had making it a chunky(fat) gross flavorless mess.

Fourthly: The temperature would need to be closely monitored to ensure that not even a little part of the "stew" gets colonized by potentially deadly bacteria. Additionally, acid and salt levels would have to be monitored and kept HIGH, in order to prevent heat-resistant bacteria from colonizing the stew. THE TECHNOLOGY TO DO THIS DID NOT EXIST IN THE MIDDLE AGES.

FINALLY: Any such concoction, even if it wasn't dangerous, would be so completely disgusting that patrons of these hypothetical medieval "Inns" would prefer literally anything else to eat. They wouldn't pay for it. It would smell like corpses and shit. Even the YouTube influencers who tried this admit that, while they didn't die from eating this, that it was ABSOLUTELY VILE. Yet this article acts like EVERYBODY ate this shit!

I've seen this article cited DOZENS of times and it's complete, absolute horseshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C6:4B81:FCD0:DC03:7D:5A68:F925 (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Reguarding the section about Annie Rauwerda's perpetual stew

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In my opinion a few things should be changed here but I may be wrong.

Firstly, her content isn't only (or even mostly) from Tiktok, as she also posts on Instagram and Twitter (especially on the Depths of Wikipedia account, which is what brought my attention to the whole thing to begin with). Maybe a different description should be used instead of "Tiktok creator".

Secondly, while the meetings were held in Bushwick, most (or at least a lot) of the people who joined the meetups weren't necessarily residents living nearby, but people who read about the meetups from the aforementioned social media accounts she has, so that should probably be clarified in the article.

Lastly, since there are so many posts and pictures of these meetups on social media (or at least in comparison to everything else here in the article), perhaps some of them could be used for either citations or as photos for the article itself. I'm a little new to Wikipedia so I'm not sure if the social media posts would count as a reliable source, but I think it should be considered. Horizon206 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm pretty new myself by the site's standards, haha! Anyhow, there's already a note about it in the "Examples" section about her, which I think succinctly summarizes the current. Specifically, it discusses the event being publicized on TikTok (rather than listing her as a TikTok creator) as well as being localized in Bushwick. Also, in my opinion "In popular culture" is more of a blip in time sort of ordeal rather than an ongoing event, so I believe again that the written portion in "Examples" is fine for this article.

Per the question about photos, as far as I can tell they can be used for citations if they present info (like a person's birthday), but cannot be used for photos due to not having permission from the original owner (unless permission is given). Pacamah (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the Rauwerda mention as it is unquestionably unencyclopaedic and is borderline promotional. Bedivere (talk) 05:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm surprised to see you've reverted my addition to the page on this. Like the users you responded to on July 3rd, I disagree with your choice. I'm also confused as to how you might read my contribution as promotional. It presents factual information about a contemporary practice of maintaining a perpetual stew and its social implications, without advocating or endorsing the event. Additionally, the information about the Perpetual Stew Club was sourced from a respected outlet known for food journalism. There are limited documented instances of contemporary perpetual stews, and Rauwerda's example is a unique and relevant case.

As far as it being "unquestionably unencyclopedic", I'd appreciate it if you could further explain what you mean by this. It presents a contemporary example of the perpetual stew tradition being upheld outside commercial establishments. It offers a balanced perspective of this practice in a community setting, thus contributing to the comprehensiveness of the article. The inclusion of diverse examples, historical and modern, commercial and community-driven, ensures the encyclopedic nature and neutrality of the article, in line with Wikipedia's standards.

I suggest reinstating the section for the reasons above. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate source of information WP:RUNOFTHEMILL and is not news WP:NOTNEWS. This event is not revelant enough on its own for its inclusion in the encyclopedia, and as such, it should not be included here, regardless of your personal opinion. Bedivere (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Also it is evident you personally know Rauwerda and should refrain from inserting that content into the article as you may be in conflict of interest. Bedivere (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to explain and providing the relevant links. I'm having some trouble following your position as the articles you've linked support my position.

On WP:RUNOFTHEMILL status:

This recurrent event's existence is not a common, everyday, ordinary item. It's certainly true that the Perpetual Stew Club should not be given a page of its own— local clubs supporting a hobby or interest should not be the cause of articles and their existence is generally not notable. But this is not a Wikipedia article on the Perpetual Stew Club; it is an article on perpetual stew. To that end, the existence of this event and specifically the stew at the event is absolutely notable, relevant, and deserving of inclusion on the page alongside the restaurant which sold it for eight months and the restaurant which has sold it for decades. (Many restaurants serve broth!) It is likely the most relevant item related to the topic of the article in decades. Regardless of our personal opinions about it, a month-old perpetual stew with community engagement and media attention is an important addition to the article, which is why you've had to fight multiple users on its presence. (Also, as you know, this essay is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, and it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Choosing to enforce this article is definitionally enforcement of a personal opinion on how Wikipedia should be run.)

On WP:NOTNEWS status:

This event isn't news, nor does inclusion represent the indiscriminate collection of information. It does have weight that should be included in proportion to its importance to the overall topic of perpetual stew.

On WP:CONFLICT status:

While it is true I have attended the event, I am not an event organizer nor currently affiliated with it in any official capacity. I was not asked nor in any way encouraged, directly or indirectly, to promote the event nor edit this page. Per the guidelines, I do not feel it necessary to disclose a conflict of interest, but I'm happy to concede on that front and take on connected contributor status if the community at large feels it necessary. Ultimately, I think it's clear I did not edit the article in my own interests, nor in the interests of my external relationships.

I'd also like to add, that like all behavioral guidelines, common sense, and occasional exceptions apply. It is Wikipedia policy that if a rule prevents one from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, it should be disregarded. Even if I had a significant conflict of interest, it's clear my contribution was an improvement to the article.

With all this in mind, it's clear the contribution should be reinstated. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It is not clear, and it should not be reinstated. It is not relevant enough for inclusion, despite your efforts otherwise. Bedivere (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not really sure you're not connected with Rauwerda when they've just congratulated you on your talk page. Makes no sense. --Bedivere (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'd love to reach a resolution and would it appreciate it if you could engage with those of us who have added this information.

Please consider refuting the central point instead of just contradicting.

One path forward for you would be to consider explaining your opinion: How is the item is not relevant enough? How are the other examples more relevant? What would need to change about either the event or the writing of the article for it to meet what you perceive to be Wikipedia's relevancy threshold? Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

For now it is only you defending Rauwerda's thing inclusion on the article. The previous commenters did not participate after my comment. One event of local relevance is not relevant for inclusion in an article of general significance. It is a one event-thing and is not encyclopedic. Bedivere (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

All examples in the article are themselves instances. That's why they fit under an example section. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

3O Response: I removed this from the 3OR page because more than two editors are involved already. In any event, we should follow RSes; posts on social media do not justify inclusion of something in an article. If this club gets coverage in RSes, I wouldn't see the issue including it as an example of a perpetual stew. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

Given the coverage of the club in both Eater NY and Thrillist, both owned by Vox Media and both constituting RSes, I have undone the revert. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

You are only edit warring, @Chive Cream Cheese. I will undo your revert and if you continue I will report you. It is obvious you are not here to abide by the Wikipedia policies. Bedivere (talk) 03:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi there.

I've maintained and followed all guidelines for dispute resolution, including seeking a third opinion, which is what you're replying to above. I encourage you to report this interaction and bring more eyes on it, as all my actions have been towards facilitating consensus-building discussion, and I've waited for community feedback before taking action.

Additionally, please be aware your choice to report all my uploaded images on Wikimedia Commons as having missing permission, despite the permission being present, constitutes hounding. Please keep your perpetual-stew-related frustration within this article's talk page.

Thank you! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It definitely gets coverage, I think that's why it keeps getting added. I just found out about it because of the coverage. 2600:4041:54BD:E800:38F1:2F1:8B63:FD38 (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It is just fine as it is now. It mentions New York and that's perfectly okay. Further mentioning Rauwerda by name and other information that is unencyclopedic is not! Bedivere (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the specificity of the examples is important and positive, but would be more than willing to concede on the mention of anyone's name! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I support @Chamaemelum:'s revision. If this event gets more coverage and the perpetual stew extends furthermore in time (as per your last edit it's only 29 days old, which is not long enough anyway) I would not oppose inserting it in its current extended version proposed by you, but not for now. Bedivere (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the previous version was TMI, but @Chamaemelum's version is too short and borderline synth because it draws a broad general conclusion, that the tradition is being "kept alive", from a few disparate examples.

@Bedivere and @Chive Cream Cheese: Would you be willing to meet in the middle? Would either or both of you be willing to work together to find additional RSes that speak more broadly to contemporary perpetual stew usage? voorts (talk/contributions) 02:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If it is happening even in one place, it is being kept alive. However, we could change it to something like "the technique is still used today" or something. Chamaemelum (talk) 02:10, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

If anyone could find at least one RS that speaks to any other contemporary perpetual stew related club or event in any capacity, I will immediately concede and agree fully that this is not notable and nor worthy of inclusion. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts A middle-point between Chamaemelum's and Chive's version would be okay. Bedivere (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I also think that would be okay! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, this is to inform everyone present in the ongoing dispute that I've opened a dispute resolution request on the noticeboard. Thank you! It can be found at WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Perpetual_Stew Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

This paragraph does not belong at all. The paragraph is promotion for something that became a "thing" a few weeks ago, and is utterly unencyclopedic. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 05:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere, that I am an admin has nothing whatsoever to do with the correctness of my position regarding this material. Thank you for reverting the article, again, certainly, but let's find a consensus here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 23:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. My primary reason for reverting was that they called your removal "unconstructive", which it wasn't. Bedivere (talk) 15:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jpgordon If it's just being used as an example of the article subject, and the mention is brief, I don't see the issue. It's the only perpetual stew to get widespread coverage in recent years. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm okay with no mention at all or a brief mention. Dedicating an entire paragraph, let alone mentioning Rauwerda, is not something I could ever agree with. Bedivere (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is there a reason Rauwerda should not be mentioned? It seems appropriate to link to the relevant page given Rauwerda is a public figure yes? 2600:4041:54BD:E800:79C7:2EA7:4E9F:48D2 (talk) 15:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

She is not a public figure. She has an Instagram account that has an article, not her. Bedivere (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have destroyed the name 2600:4041:54BD:E800:79C7:2EA7:4E9F:48D2 (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Did you? ToadetteEdit ^(chat)/ _(logs) 15:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

It has been reverted but I tried.

I would be ok with no name but do think it should be mentioned. To not mention it would be bad for the article since the article is about perpetual stew.

Maybe the wording needs to change so it doesn't sound like a promotion.

If the event ended today then in one year it would be a great addition. I know it is a recent event but we could improve the article if we tread carefully in how we mention it. 2600:4041:54BD:E800:79C7:2EA7:4E9F:48D2 (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The entirety of the paragraph got removed by one user. I thought the consensus was to leave it? It's now admin locked and can't be reverted. Pacamah (talk) 17:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah I agree. @Jpgordon: we were having an active discussion and trying to reach a consensus. Removing the paragraph and then admin-locking the page does not help with those efforts and I think it's inappropriate given you've expressed an opinion on the topic and aren't impartial in this discussion. Would you consider restoring the status quo so we can continue to work on this? voorts (talk/contributions) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: interjecting here. I believe you should read the protection log before assuming that Jpgordon is the one who locked the page. – robertsky (talk) 17:56, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Robertsky That's my bad. I shouldn't have assumed. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I also thought just about everyone was fine with a short mention of it that was non-promotional and did not mention the founder by name.

Does anyone present strongly oppose this? Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I honestly want to ask you, what is the actual point of adding a very recent event of local relevance into an article that treats a subject going centuries back and only giving those centuries minimal writing? It's definitely undue attention to this 2023 thing. I am up for removing it altogether. Bedivere (talk) 18:10, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

The "Modern revival" section, as written, is basically three examples of random restaurants (as well as an unsourced claim about Japanese culture). How is this any less notable than those, other than the fact that it's more recent and has gotten more coverage in the press than the first three examples? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I have already mentioned it but we are not the news. It is doubtful, but not definite, that this event will have lasting significance. Could it be worth a mention? Perhaps. Not now definitely. Re. the other restaurants, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bedivere (talk) 01:44, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This event already has significance to the overarching topic of Perpetual Stew and is far more notable than any one restaurant maintaining a broth for a while.

This event has attracted hundreds of people and continues to get media attention. It's not presented as "news".

Also, I'd really appreciate it if you could just state your reasoning instead of (or in addition to) linking to unofficial opinion essays which— as seen above— often don't support your view. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"is far more notable than any one restaurant maintaining a broth for a while" -- that's your opinion, that of an involved individual, who has participated in such an event (self evident as you have uploaded the picture of Rauwerda's event). WP:NOTNEWS means that Wikipedia is ... not the news. It is not here to report every single thing happening about broader topics such as this one. And now that you're commenting on OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, try to get lucky contesting the broad acceptance of that essay ("unofficial opinion essays") in this Wikipedia. Bedivere (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there's been any debate that we have differing opinions on the best enforcement of Wikipedia policy and on what is worthy of inclusion through those policies. Yes, we both have opinions. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 03:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bedivere You're missing the point RE OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not arguing that this is notable or shouldn't be removed because other stuff exists. I'm arguing that this is at least as notable as the other examples that are already in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"What is the actual point of adding a very recent event of local relevance into an article that treats a subject going centuries back and only giving those centuries minimal writing?"

I appreciate your concern, but it's crucial to consider the broader implications of the recent "local event". This 2023 occurrence isn't just a blip in time; it's the most significant manifestation of the centuries-old tradition of perpetual stew and serves an important role in understanding the ongoing cultural relevance and interest in this historic practice. Furthermore, may be the only perpetual-stew related event in centuries.

It would be a major disservice to people who come to this article to exclude the event. Hundreds of people regularly congregated in Brooklyn to communally create and eat from a perpetual stew. Excluding it will leave readers with an incomplete picture of the subject matter.

As for how that inclusion works— whether or not or not we name the specific creators of the club or the age of the stew— I'm very flexible on and was more than happy with the version of this article which made no mention of the creator. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a sound argument. I support including the event. Chamaemelum (talk) 03:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

"it's the most significant manifestation of the centuries-old tradition of perpetual stew" -- no. It might be this week the most publicized. It's far too recent to consider it "significant". Or even notable. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Definitely not notable for its own article, but I don't see a big issue with a passing mention of the event. Also, if Chive is right that hundreds of people showed up, there is a decent chance that it is the biggest perpetual stew event ever. Perhaps if you think it isn't that significant then the text mentioning it could be shortened? Chamaemelum (talk) 03:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Right or not, it is no more than a local event with no evident lasting significance. Bedivere (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Btw thanks for your magnificent opinion, @Chive Cream Cheese, but saying that "it's the most significant manifestation of the centuries-old tradition of perpetual stew" with no other source than your own, personally involved and respectable but very biased opinion, is moot to me. Yes, there is some news coverage. Does that make this event of local relevance (let alone national, international impact) worthy of a mention now? I tend to think the contrary. Since I don't have a crystal ball, I can't say if, in the future, this particular event will prove to be more relevant to perpetual stew in a global context. Bedivere (talk) 07:04, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that perpetual stew itself is not very notable. Therefore, a very notable event among perpetual stew events might not be very notable at all. Chamaemelum (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously this is not a notable or important event in the history of recorded events.

It is, however, notable and important as a perpetual stew in the history of recorded perpetual stews.

The subject of this article is perpetual stew, not world events.

I don't understand why you'd need a crystal ball to determine if the only recorded 200+ attending ongoing perpetual stew event is notable and relevant to a topic which has been so, so quiet for the last 600 years.

Even if this event ends up overshadowed— even if hundreds of larger, unrelated perpetual stew events were to spring up next year, with attendees in the millions... it would only reaffirm the importance and relevance of this (apparently pioneering) event.

By any reasonable metric, this is relevant to the topic and notable within it.

Also, the dispute resolution noticeboard posting was closed as you refused to participate in moderated discussion. Why didn't you participate? Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Bedivere (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to my comment. I did participate in the DRN. No one else seemed willing to further their participation though. The remainder is just your opinion of an event of local significance, if not relevance. Bedivere (talk) 16:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

This is what should be done and why I destroyed the name 2600:4041:54BD:E800:79C7:2EA7:4E9F:48D2 (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Ultimately though it's up to the consensus of the talk page. The people who want to add the name are probably at the same level of desire (no idea if that's the right word) as the people who want to see it struck, and ultimately why there's pretty much a trial being written on the perpetual stew talk page. I understand wanting to take initiative and strike it, but it's important to do what the majority agrees with. Trust me I've done it before (I've gotten into arguments about composer infoboxes after making one and having it removed minutes later), and talk pages are probably the best way to sort it. Pacamah (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Should we close this discussion and open an RfC? I don't think we're going to reach consensus any time soon and it would be good to get some outside voices. Pinging @Pacamah, Chive Cream Cheese, Chamaemelum, Bedivere, and Jpgordon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voorts (talk • contribs) 14:16, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

We've already had one Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Perpetual Stew and it seems like it sorta went nowhere? Also I have no idea how it works so that might be the reason too tbh Pacamah (talk) 15:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah I was never notified of the DRN dispute, which in any event, is not an RfC. An RfC involves people commenting, on the article talk page, and then the discussion being closed by an uninvolved editor who determines consensus. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

See WP:RFC. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It can be resolved here just fine. Bedivere (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I thought we were reaching consensus; there seemed to be movement towards a compromise, which you agreed to, but now it seems like you're fully opposed to any mention. Are you still up for a compromise? If not, I don't see how we resolve this without an RfC with an uninvolved close at the end. voorts (talk/contributions) 15:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It's true I changed my mind, returning to my original position. I don't think it should get a mention. As I have repeatedly said before, and as I have read this is getting finished in nearly a month, if this event proves to have some sort of lasting significance, I wouldn't object mentioning it in the form that was previously agreed. Right now it is utterly unencyclopaedic. Bedivere (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

If Bedivere is unwilling to compromise I am in favor of RfC. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 16:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahh apologies, I had no idea (I've never been in a dispute like this before lol), thanks for letting me know Pacamah (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Here's my proposal for an RfC prompt: Should the "Modern revival" section contain a one sentence reference to the perpetual stew that is currently being cooked in Brooklyn, New York, without mentioning Annie Rauwerda or Depths of Wikipedia? (See this diff for more information on the stew). voorts (talk/contributions) 23:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Works for me.

There are a number of more recent reliable sources, including those claiming as many as 200 attendees, and I think that's relevant to if this should be included / is notable. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 23:45, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah & @Jpgordon, okay with you to close this discussion and start an RfC? voorts (talk/contributions) 13:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good! Pacamah (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Protected edit request on 17 July 2023

1. Archive [citation 3] to allow those in the EEA to read the source as GDPR restrictions mean the article is blocked
2. Change the author name of the above source to "Moulton, Sara" as it is mistakenly attributed to Associated Press (the overarching provider)
3. In the "In popular culture" section, add a CN tag to point 2 ("In A Song of Ice and Fire [...]")
4. Remove citation 6, the Atlas Obscura article, as it has been retracted

Thank stew :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Please confirm the correct link for the archived version?
2.  Done
3.  Done
4.  Done

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

[1] XxLuckyCxX (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I added it, but that page only shows two sentences for me — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not sure why it's being used as a source (maybe relating to the image) but wasn't my choice to add it in so will leave it for now. Thank you :) XxLuckyCxX (talk) 22:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You mean it's only two sentences in the original? If so that seems a totally useless reference — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Fake citation

It appears citation number 6 has been retracted for having pure fabrications. Per the source:

This article has been retracted as it does not meet Atlas Obscura’s editorial standards. Our investigation revealed the writer fabricated interviews with multiple sources; Michael Colameco and David Santos confirmed via email that they have never been interviewed by the writer, and that quotes and other material attributed to them by the writer have been taken from other sources. Atlas Obscura was unable to reach Magdalena Perrote, Dr. Annie Gray, and Adaeze Okafor.

Would be a good idea to remove it from the article. :3 F4U (they/it) 07:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There's citation 5 there too so I think it should be okay to remove it.

yippeeee!! :3 Pacamah (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Done by ComplexRational. Legoktm (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Brooklyn perpetual stew

Should the "Modern revival" section contain a one sentence reference to the perpetual stew that is currently being cooked in Brooklyn, New York, without mentioning Annie Rauwerda or Depths of Wikipedia? See this diff for more information on the stew as well as the discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants: @Chive Cream Cheese, Pacamah, Jpgordon, Bedivere, and Horizon206.

• Support The "Modern revival" section is basically examples of modern perpetual stews. The other examples in the section are a couple of restaurants that have made perpetual stews in recent years. The stew being made in Brooklyn has received far more coverage than those stews and a brief mention is not UNDUE. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts I do agree with many of the points made here. However, while it has brought a lot of attention towards the topic, it is no longer going to be perpetual. There is a final meeting planned for the stew on August 6th (https://www.perpetualstew.club/home/about). While I'm not sure if it disqualifies it from being in the perpetual stew article (I'm fairly neutral about the whole situation), I think it is something that should be taken into account. Horizon206 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

When this perpetual stew finally stops cooking after months, it will still have been a perpetual stew, like the other example of a perpetual stew which stewed for eight months and stopped in 2015.

While ultimately any stew supporting multiple cycles of eating and replenishing while continuously cooking could count, and I'm sure there are arguments that could be made about a stew that served both lunch and dinner while staying on the stove... We're looking at what will be a 58-day period of cooking supporting hundreds of meals for hundreds of people, weeks apart. I don't think it's really very debatable that this was a perpetual stew, even for those who don't find it to be a notable one. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: Reliable sources seldom write about contemporary examples of perpetual stews. With as many as two hundred participants regularly gathering to participate in cooking and eating a perpetual stew which has been cooking for over a month, this appears to be the largest perpetual stew-related event in recorded history. It is certainly relevant to the article topic.

It would be a major disservice to those who come to this article to choose to exclude this event. To do so while while making note of New York City restaurants which have maintained less popular perpetual stews would effectively be paltering, and excluding it would leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the subject matter.

While this club / event may not meet some contributors' personal definitions of notability, it certainly meets the criteria of WP:GNG, Wikipedia's general notability guideline. In fact, It is so notable it could have its own article. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Given the club's coverage in many reliable, independent sources— including New York Magazine, The Washington Post, Insider, and the Vox-owned Eater and Thrillist, it is clear that the criteria for notability is met— arguably for a stand-alone article, and certainly within this article. For reference, many of the other examples are only mentioned in one reliable source.

Some argue against inclusion on the basis this event is too recent (WP:RECENT), and could lose notability if the perpetual stew were to stop cooking today, or if the near future holds unrelated examples of independently-organized perpetual-stew related events with higher attendance. While it is true that the article may one day need updating in keeping with our changing world, it would be inappropriate to exclude the event based on our personal theories of the future. It doesn't matter that the event may soon end, grow, or change. It already warrants inclusion in the current form.

In short: The club is objectively notable and relevant to the topic. It would be unencyclopedic to exclude it.

Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose mention I have thoroughly explained my position in the thread above. This is only an event of local relevance, regardless of the media coverage. There seem to be some systemic bias (not just in this article but throughout the English Wikipedia). I do not agree with including a mention of the event, and if it were to be included, it should not contain the organizer name as it is of even less relevance in the larger context of perpetual stews. And those complaining about the other minor occurrences of notable perpetual stews, I'd suggest them to go search Google Books, there's plenty of material there waiting to be included and that is more noteworthy than this event that may be relevant to those who participated and/or sympathize with Rauwerda and her social media account "Depths of Wikipedia", but don't let your passions or affections drive your positions here. To me it is clear this is not a relevant event. Bedivere (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  At the end of the protection period, please add the other well-sourced perpetual stew examples that you've found. I'm sure they would be a wonderful addition to the article! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can do it yourself too. Bedivere (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly. If you share the sources you'd like to add to the article, I'd be happy to help. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why is the event being of only "local relevance" important or relevant to its inclusion in the article? This is a fairly esoteric subject, all examples are going to be minor and of only local relevance? There's no stew olympics (stewlympics?) known across the country.

  So unless you're arguing for the deletion of the page entirely, I don't follow your point. Do you have any evidence of these other stews you claim to have found but seem to be unable to source yourself? Maybe you just have a personal vendetta against Rauwerda as your contribution history seems to show you previously removed her name from the intro of the Depths of Wikipedia page? Curious... 2600:4041:54BD:E800:5DF0:14CF:DA4B:C22D (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm too curious about the particular interests of you and other accounts who have happened to comment here and have very few other contributions. Salsadancer, who commented below, made their very first edit here, for example. Strange, to say the least. Anyway, I have already said there are many mentions of perpetual stews in XIX century books available freely on Google books. There are also sources at Google Scholar. I suggested contributors to improve the article's content by adding such content instead of a non notable "stew party" Bedivere (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support:In the context of this Article it's worthy of a mention.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Definitely agree with with Chive Cream Cheese's point re: WP:RECENTISM but there are various reliable sources which provide meaningful stew-based context into Rauwerda's event XxLuckyCxX (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support I can't think of any sane reason why this would not be included and other examples of less notability would. 2600:4041:54BD:E800:5DF0:14CF:DA4B:C22D (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: Good example of a perpetual stew. Deserving of a few sentences. Name of founder should perhaps not be invoked. SalsaDancer2 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — SalsaDancer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support: Per my other defenses of the inclusion of the sentence, I don't see why having something that is a current event, and as others have said is probably the most notable perpetual stew in recent history, is something that shouldn't be on here. It is a perpetual stew. The other examples that are on the article could themselves be taken as something that is "advertising," so I don't see why this one is a special example of some other type of advertising. Also, given the flood of new news articles on the topic itself, I don't see how that would negate it from being able to be listed. I think it is okay to maybe have it be disconnected from the Depths of Wikipedia account, and maybe listed as the Perpetual Stew club. There are a number of other articles that have also added new information or events that are continuing, and I don't see why this article should be singled out given that it is a current and relevant example of the contents of the article. Pacamah (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Easy support, with a mention of Rauwerda. Outlets covering the Bushwick stew now include WaPo, NY Mag, Yahoo, Today, WNYC, NY Post, The Independent, Thrillist, and Eater. It’s not just New York media, and even if it was, that would in no way be disqualifying given the narrow nature of the topic. Personal disclosure: I have attended it, but IMHO the news coverage speaks for itself regardless. Cpotisch (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rauwerda does not even have her own article. Any mention of her would be WP:UNDUE and I strongly oppose it. Bedivere (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but Depths of Wikipedia has its own article, and it’s been mentioned in most news articles covering this. Seems entirely relevant. Cpotisch (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But the account is not Rauwerda, and Rauwerda has no article, and the eventual mention would be for Rauwerda not Depths Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: In pursuit of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and given what appears to be overwhelming (though not unanimous) support for inclusion, here's my proposal for wording. It's quite different from my initial revision, but in the spirit of compromise and consensus, I removed all mention of the initial stew's creator and the initial stew creator's primary work, as well as the specific location.

For a current update:

Since June 7, 2023, a Perpetual Stew Club has been holding intermittent events in Bushwick, Brooklyn to continue the stew for which their eponymous name derives. Hundreds of people regularly gather to perpetually replenish the stew, which is 1 year, 71 days old as of August 17, 2024.

If the meetings should end (let's assume on August 6th) the article could then be updated to:

Between June and August of 2023, a Perpetual Stew Club formed in Bushwick. Hundreds of participants regularly gathered to continuously replenish the stew. The stew finished cooking on August 6, 2023 at 60 days old.

Of course, I welcome any and all feedback on how this writing could be improved, or you're welcome to help find consensus by editing it. I hope it is sufficiently non-promotional.

And Bedivere, I've asked this before, but I would still love it if you could directly state or outline what criteria would need to be met for it to fit your 'personal' definition of relevancy or notability? Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chive Cream Cheese The RfC has been running for 5 days, very few people have participated, and people are still commenting. This isn't in SNOW territory and we should let the RfC run its course before declaring consensus (and, given that the prior discussion was quite contentious, I will request a neutral closer at CR when the time comes. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine by me. I didn't mean to declare that consensus has already been reached. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I can live with such a mention if consensus (excluding particular purpose "votes") determines its inclusion. Bedivere (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Salsadancer and the IP have been blocked apparently for sockpuppeeting. These should be struck Bedivere (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I recommend starting a sub-thread of this discussion to work-shop potential language. You could use a third-level header underneath the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That looks perfect. I think we have consensus. SalsaDancer2 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) — SalsaDancer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment The Brooklyn stew has now been covered in The Independent – although the author is based in New York, this outlet is beyond local media. I also don't see anything inherently wrong with a brief mention of Rauwerda by name as the club's founder (similar attribution is given in many other cases), so long as there is no WP:UNDUE weight or digression into Depths of Wikipedia. ^Complex/_Rational 00:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Moving to support brief mention, with name. In addition to the numerous sources linked in this discussion, there are plenty of examples of people who are relevant in the context of an idea or event, and who are accordingly named in those articles, but who do not have articles of their own. I don't see how this is any different than, for instance, explicitly attributing a scientific finding to an author who doesn't have their own article, or giving a purportedly non-notable film critic credit for their review.

  I also agree that the history section ought to be expanded to provide a broader perspective, so as not to place undue emphasis on modern examples.

  In the interest of transparency, I disclose that I have met Rauwerda on one occasion unrelated to perpetual stew (and have not tasted the stew myself). ^Complex/_Rational 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Let's see, we've got mentions under "modern revival" of an eight months example, a 49 year example, a 78 year example and...a 43 day old example. Not really very perpetual, yet. It's just noise on the internet right now, with some obvious fanboy enthusiasm. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  How long do you keep your stews cooking for, jpgordon?

  Respectfully, I'm not sure how you could reasonably classify a stew that has been cooking for well over a month "not really very perpetual". I would be right with you if this were a three day affair, at which point the stew would technically and unambiguously meet the criteria but not, to me, feel in the spirit of it.

  More importantly, however... The age of the stew (or even the existence of it!) is not critical to the issue of inclusion within this article. If there were no stew, and this club were merely an association of perpetual stew enthusiasts, who regularly gathered to celebrate the concept, it would be important to mention this hundreds-strong club on the page— just not under the modern revivals section. The organized collective of "fanboy [enthusiasts]" are worthy of recognition on this page because it is sufficiently notable for its "fanboy enthusiasm".

  If this doesn't fit under the modern revivals section due to being too short a perpetual stew, and I strongly believe it does fit, then it should be given its own section or placed somewhere else on the page due to the other merits. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mild support (summoned by bot). This stew seems to have attracted a reasonable level of notoriety, and the mention seems reasonably proportionate and reasonably likely to be of some interest to the reader, as part of a section that is currently just a fairly brief and scattershot list of examples. If more examples emerge, or sources are found that make a more cohesive narrative possible, then at some point some consideration will need to be given to pruning; at that point, this might not make the cut (or perhaps might turn out to fit better in a separate section as suggested above). But for now it seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly notable, and has been discussed in numerous WP:Reliable Sources. Honestly seems very clear to me that it should be included. As for arguments about if it actually constitutes a 'perpetual' stew, that's how sources are describing it so we should follow that. I think this discussion has been dragged out by Bedivere's objections which by now have been clearly expressed but don't seem to be supported by consensus. My advice for editors who have been heavily involved in this discussion (from all sides) is to maybe take a step back, recognise that you've made your view clear, and see how the consensus falls. Remember we are not here to Right Great Wrongs Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  More than the apparent notability of this event (which I do not agree with) I am more disturbed by the urge of some users to include Rauwerda's name, even though she has no article of herself and that of Depths of Wikipedia is about the instagram account, not her. As you have already said, I have expressed my objections more than enough times, and my position right now is to let it be. Bedivere (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support: For the way the article looks right now, including Rauwerda's stew is definitely appropriate. But a better article would lean less heavily on anecdotes and more heavily on broader-scope encyclopedic content about the history and nature of perpetual stews. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Question: is the cauldron perpetually leeky, or only leeky on a temporary basis? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  perpetually leeky, of course! every article a new leek in the cauldron :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  hahaha glad to hear it! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I first visited this page a few days ago and found the wording of this RfC really weird. without mentioning Annie Rauwerda or Depths of Wikipedia. That seemed odd because the only thing I know about the renewed interest in perpetual stew is that it's directly through Annie Rauwerd and Depths of Wikipedia. What sense would it make to go way out of our way to separate them? I figured there must not be all that much sourcing about it and DoW fans must be spamming the page. I didn't look into it much. Today I reopened the page and literally moments later, while I'm looking at the RfC, a story pops up on WNYC's Morning Edition about perpetual stew in Brooklyn, with Annie Rauwerda at the center. I looked for a link to the story, but it doesn't look like it's up yet. I did find another WNYC-related link, though, via Gothamist, which mentions Rauwerda by name eleven times. So what's the story of the awkward "without mentioning" business? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites It was an attempt at compromise; see the closed thread above that led to this RfC. Please feel free to propose an alternative to the RfC framing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of an RfC is usually to solicit outside involvement (and, sure, to formalize the results of a discussion). Saying "check out this wall of text" isn't usually very effective at getting outside involvement. :) Usually a good idea to provide a summary of the perspectives alongside the RfC IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites That's fair. The dispute was that some editors want the stew mentioned here because it's been covered in RSes, and others did not because they feel it's routine news and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There was almost a compromise to include, but that imploded. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Ingredients" Section only has one sentence & Medieval perpetual stew hoax

To take everyone's minds off the Bushwick perpetual stew, I noticed that the "Ingredients" Section near the end of the article contains only one sentence. In my opinion, I think it'd be better if we take that sentence and put it in the bottom of the lead.

On top of this, I saw on the talk page some claims that the whole concept of medieval perpetual stews was fabricated in the 70s. Such accusations (even if only accusations) sound like something that should be mentioned in the actual article itself. I'd like to hear some thoughts on if these things should be implemented. Horizon206 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with moving the ingredients section. I feel that definitely having it in the top section would be much cleaner, since a stew in general can really have anything. Also I guess we could add something about the concept being fabricated? If there's sources then I'd say definitely. Pacamah (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah and @Horizon206. So I did some digging, and I found this source which contests the historical accuracy of perpetual stew: [2]

Do we think that this merits inclusion in the article? Please advise or just be bold and add it in yourself.

Bonus note: That source raises some questions about the safety of eating perpetual stew, which are reinforced by this source:[3]. This could also be added. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into these and possibly add it. When I do, feel free to edit it as this is my first time I edited Wikipedia beyond grammatical fixes and translations. Horizon206 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)