Talk:Cretan cuisine

Untitled

Cretan diet is a translation from Κρητική Διατροφή. An e-mail for "Κρητική Διατροφή" has already been send.

Some resources

Here are some 3rd party resources for anyone who wishes to work on the article: [1] [2] [3] Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know of classical references to Cretan cuisine or cookbooks?

General comments about problems with this article

The article needs to look less like someone's essay and more like an article discussing the diet of Cretans from a third party perspective. For instance, using some of the sources I've provided above. Discussing the changes in what Cretans eat, and whether they still follow this diet. The word 'we' should never be used unless it's in a direct quotation. It needs to be more succinct, and it should not be simply copied from other sources even if there is an OTRS ticket allowing this or the source is explicitly copyright free. Dougweller (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Dougweller, the Cretan diet article is a translation from the greek wikipedia Κρητική Διατροφή. It has references and bibliography, as the Greek translation. I have already send an e-mail to Greek wikipedia explaining all these. This article about Cretan Diet is written from a phd scientist and it is verified from its resources. The article you have added has no resources, no links at all. Could we replace it with the original translation about Cretan diet?

Thanx in Advace symfono_gram 11:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

The problem with the original article is not who wrote it or whether it was referenced, it was the tone, which was 100% promotional and unfit for an encyclopedia. To maintain neutrality, the article had to be trimmed down by removing any advocacy. As I have written before, if you want to improve it, get that PhD scientist to work on it, but this time respecting Wikipedia's rules on neutrality and referencing. The fact that the Greek Wikipedia has allowed it to stand so far is of no importance here, as the rules are clear: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Regards, Constantine ✍ 10:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I just went back and looked at the original article, and the problems you've mentioned notwithstanding, it is a far better article than the current revision: (1) Whoever made the current revision removed all the citations. I fail to see how this is an improvement. (2) Can you explain what you mean by "100% promotional"? The original article is descriptive, not prescriptive, in content. Webbbbbbber (talk) 07:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(later) Ah, now I see what you mean. The original article is too closely connected to this "Cretan Quality Agreement" company, which *is* 100% promotional, and says so. Still the original article is better, I think. I'll see if I can find some time to help clean it up. Webbbbbbber (talk) 08:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This article is clearly showing a bias towards a vegetarian diet, just given its initial exclusion of meat from "natural sources" of food. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.253.201 (talk) 08:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Cretan Salad

There should be an article about the Cretan Salad... Böri (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair do's. I agree with the sentiment that the article needs working on and could always be improved upon, but I don't believe it was particularly POV or NPOV or, were there an actual problem here, it was ever defined; the article simply was. Cheers for removing the tag and keep up the good work. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)