Talk:Gastronationalism

astroturfing?

Hey, @ConstantPlancks. What was the concern w/re these edits? I added those here. valereee (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Astroturfing in the sense that his name is coming up in articles and places where it doesn't appear to have particular notability. For example: New York University professor Fabio Parasecoli has defined food as an expression of identity. is a red linked opinion with no value add. We are all aware there is Italian food, French Cuisine, Chinese food, etc, etc. If I made the same generic statement on my talk page, it isn't particularly insightful nor is my observation notable. That generic sentence is the only sentence attributed solely to Parasecoli. That reference (to a magazine article, not academic) is then sprinkled as a second or third source for other sentences. or example, it's next used to cite Sociologist Michaela DeSoucey in 2010 described the concept of gastronationalism as the use of food and its history, production, control, and consumption as a way of promoting nationalism. even though we have citations to TWO DeSoucey publications. Parasecoli is not a reliable source for DeSoucey quotes when we have tertiary sources that published DeSoucey. Lastly, that same source is used in the Feta section to support Feta was before 1999 used only by Greek producers. During the 1990s, Denmark and Germany challenged the labelling, arguing that the word 'feta' was Italian and that other EU countries shared climate and geography with parts of Greece and should be permitted to label their feta-style cheeses as Feta.. There is already a source for that dispute [1]. Finally, The Borgen Project is a political advocacy organization and citing it for facts is problematic. ConstantPlancks (talk) 02:59, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A source isn't required to have notability. It is required to be reliable. And you're objecting to using two sources to support an assertion? valereee (talk) 10:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm objecting to using The Borgen Project as a source. It's not reliable and it's unneeded. WP is not an advertising vehicle for political advocacy. Removing it is policy. Removing it as a source didn't change content because it was a) trivial and b) duplicative. ConstantPlancks (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

At AN you said On the talk pages where I removed things, the consensus appears to be the removals were justified. I do not see anyone else commenting here. You also, btw, said that you hadn't removed content. You did remove content. I'd prefer not to discuss content at AN, as that's not what we do there. But misrepresenting the situation is a behavioral issue, which we do deal with at AN/I. Please don't misrepresent what is happening. There is no consensus here, and you did remove content. valereee (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)