This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Ukrainian origins of borscht were hidden? If we ignore the fact that borscht is historically present in the cuisine of most Eastern European Slavs (to the extent that Ukrainian and Russian borscht differ significantly regionally), the Ukrainian roots of borscht have never been hidden. Moreover, in Soviet and later Russian culture it was repeatedly emphasized that borscht is loved and has huge connections in Ukraine. If anyone tried to deny the connection between borscht and Ukraine, they would be looked at as if they were trying to deny that sandwiches originated in England. As a resident of both Ukraine and Russia, I can confirm this. I do not understand what "concealment of the Ukrainian roots of borscht" this Western source writes about. Not to mention that the section describes it as if Russians insisted that we invented borscht, while we have always said that borscht is a common Slavic dish and therefore ALSO part of Russian cuisine. Solaire the knight (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we can only cite authoritative sources and that is why I wrote here without making any edits to the article. Anyway, as a resident of the region, I am very surprised by how the cited English-language sources describe this. Sources make it sound like Russians have been trying to hide borscht's connection to Ukraine for decades, but in fact, any Russian will tell you that borscht, at least the Ukrainian version, is one of the main symbols of Ukrainian cuisine. Solaire the knight (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the sources certainly seem to be saying that Ukraine has objected to what they see as appropriation by Russia. This is pretty common in gastronationalistic disputes. The history here seems to be that of the USSR trying to develop a 'Soviet' national cuisine that included dishes from various member states. Also not unusual in such disputes; there is similar history with falafel. Valereee (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian officials have very specific notions about what can be considered Ukrainian. For example, there are widely known cases, including in the Ukrainian Wikipedia, when some famous persons is called Ukrainian only because their parents immigrated from Tsarist/Soviet Ukraine (including Crimea, which at that time was not even associated with Ukraine) or their ancestors once had some connection with Ukraine. A classic example is the Russian historian Kostomarov, who was widely interested in Ukraine because of his mother's Ukrainian roots, but despite attempts to declare him a Ukrainian historian or even to write his name in the Ukrainian manner in this site, he never considered himself Ukrainian and even made the history of Russia the main work of his life. But to return to this case, you clearly had to be very far from life in Russia or the USSR to claim that the Russians tried to hide the Ukrainian connection of borscht or declare it a purely Russian dish. Yes, Soviet ideologists tried to create a "Soviet cuisine", but no one ever tried to hide the roots of certain dishes. Especially when these dishes were symbols of their regional cuisines. However, as with a number of other Ukraine-centric topics, I fear that much of this has also become much more complicated due to the war. Which may at least partially explain why a pan-East Slavic dish has come to be considered specifically Ukrainian. Solaire the knight (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The section isn't saying Russians considered it/declared it a purely Russian dish, or even that Russia intentionally tried to hide the origins. It's saying that according to an academic who wrote a 2021 history of food in Russia, the Ukrainian origins became obscured as the dish became ubiquitous in Russian cuisine. My interlibrary loan is undergoing a major update right now, so I won't be able to order that book right away so we can recheck what exactly it says, but I'll put that on my to do. Valereee (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Borscht is obviously widespread in Russian cuisine, which is why it is often considered a purely Russian dish of Russian cuisine (As far as I remember, even the place where borscht was first mentioned was Veliky Novgorod), but its Ukrainian connection is too well known for anyone to deny it. In Russia, borscht is generally considered a popular Russian version of a common East Slavic dish that has an equally or even more powerful tradition in Ukraine. It is like pilaf for Central Asians or stew for Central Europeans. Solaire the knight (talk) 15:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
