Talk:Jane Grigson

message: I wonder why the talk page archive isn't shown here? 
In finding it, by looking through the talk page history, I read that an early writer on this page found a quote:
"The Penguin page has a nice quote: "In her obituary for the Independent, Alan Davidson wrote that 'Jane Grigson left to the English-speaking world a legacy of fine writing on food and cookery for which no exact parallel exists."" Could this be added to the page? Her work is of international, not just British, importance. Stronach (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a good quote, but we quote AD's obit extensively already, and I am bit wary of using any more of it. Tim riley talk 14:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  No archive? 

message: Surprised there isn't an infobox for this article. Shouldn't there be the bio infobox? GeraldWL 11:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Per MOS:INFOBOXUSE, "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article.  Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article.". Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Still, it's weird that an article expected to have an infobox doesn't have one, as bio articles mostly have infoboxes. GeraldWL 14:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A great many Life and Works featured articles do not have an I-B, they having been thought otiose in such articles. (Fine and welcome in Biographical articles about politicians, clerics etc - listing posts - and sportspeople - listing stats, but not much practical use for an author.) Tim riley talk 14:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Apparently Grigson campaigned for "food provenance". What does that mean? "provenance" just means "where it comes from", so "campaigning for food provenance" is in a literal sense redundant.  
:
User          	Edit           	Edit summary
jnestorius    	add clarify tag	How can you be "for provenance"? All food has provenance. Does this mean Traceability? Geographical indication? Misleading advertising?
109.249.185.63	revert         	Not all food have provenance. Know where the beef comes from on a cheap burger?
jnestorius    	restore        	Not all food has *known* provenance, i.e. Traceability. It's not clear from the text that that is what Jane Grigson was thinking of
109.249.185.63	re-revert      	Clear from the context, particularly the references in the body. It would take a wilful desire not to understand to be confused by this
With respect to User:109.249.185.63, it is not clear from the context. I note that Provenance (disambiguation) has no relevant article to link to. I am not sure if "the references in the body" means the text in the body of the article, or the external references cited from that text. In any case, the lede should be understandable on its own without reference to the body, let alone to external sources. But as regards text in the body of the article I find these snippets are relevant:
* Grigson emphasises the advantages of good, locally-produced food, which she says, is not only better but usually cheaper than that offered by the large commercial concerns: "Words such as 'fresh' and 'home-made' have been borrowed by commerce to tell lies."
* The food trade makes the egalitarian mistake, which is also a convenience for itself, of thinking that every food has to be as cheap and inoffensive as every other similar food.
* she became an early critic of battery farming and passionate about the provenance of food. In one of her columns in The Observer she warned her readers against "barn eggs", as it concealed "some concentration camp under the nice Cotswold-tiled words".
* The encouragement of fine food is not greed or gourmandise; it can be seen as an aspect of the anti-pollution movement in that it indicates concern for the quality of the environment. ... Small and medium-sized firms, feeling unable to compete with the cheap products of the giants, turn to producing better food. A courageous pig-breeder in Suffolk starts a cooked pork shop ... restaurants specialising in local food ... bags of strong flour and the prominence given to eggs direct from the farm
So at a minimum "campaigned for food provenance" might mean 
* encouraged people to buy food from known individual farms 
* wanted food labelling laws to regulate phrases like "barn eggs" or "home-made"
At a minimum "campaigned for food provenance" should be changed to "campaigned for better labelling of food provenance" or "promoted greater awareness of food provenance"; but more specific terms and wikilinks would be better still. jnestorius(talk) 12:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: But Mrs Grigson was concerned about the provenance of food, not merely its labelling. Clear enough, it seems to me. 14:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  please believe me when I say that it is not clear to me, so a response to the effect "oh yes it is clear" is not helpful. The words I am not clear on are "campaigning" and "provenance". When you say she  do you mean "she was concerned about where food came from"? Or something more specific or different? Perhaps "provenance" has a meaning for gourmets that is not given by ordinary dictionaries; this multi-search did not enlighten me. And what form did her "concern" take; was it merely something she mentioned in passing in such quotes as those I have listed above; did she write more substantive essays or polemics; did she take action other than writing? jnestorius(talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course I believe you: it would be discourteous and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia not to. But the meaning has evidently been clear to the various colleagues who kindly reviewed the article at peer review and featured article candidacy en route to the front page. Reciprocally, you will, I am sure, believe me that I don't see any ambiguity or need to rewrite at this late stage, though naturally if a consensus emerges to the contrary I'll go along with it. Tim riley talk 16:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't share your degree of confidence in the review process. Hypothetically, if I were to correct a misspelling on the front-page, it would be absurd to revert my change on the basis that the review process should have detected all misspellings. So, when I don't understand what "campaigned for food provenance" means, I don't think it's good enough to respond, "well, most people seem to understand what it means, you can't please everybody". At the very least, someone might take pity on me on this talk page and offer a sentence or two explaining what they understand "campaigned for food provenance" to mean using words other than "provenance". I have even offered a few candidate words and phrases above they might copy-paste into their response. Who knows, I might then be able to suggest a rewording which would be understandable to me without being inferior to others. jnestorius(talk) 16:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be agreed that a consensus may possibly emerge for a change. Let us see. I'm not sure what your experience is of the review process, and I don't recall seeing your name there in the past: both PR and FAC are always extremely glad of new reviewers, and if you haven't contributed so far (my apologies if you have, I hasten to add) do look in at some current and future reviews: your participation may boost "your degree of confidence". Tim riley talk 16:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provenance 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: just in case, I've replaced the disputed image with another one of Austen. Tim riley talk 18:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion