Talk:Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

SC comments

Tim riley, An excellent rewriting which I thoroughly enjoyed. Only a few small trifling comments from me:

• Shouldn't Ancien Régime be italicised throughout?
• "the new regime": as this is in English, it shouldn't carry the accent
• Check the inconsistency in serial commas (you both use and don't use it – "Rabelais, Voltaire and Rousseau" Vvs "port, Madeira, and punch", for example)

I hope these are useful, and I look forward to seeing this with a green cross at the top. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

They are indeed useful. Thank you! Tim riley talk 18:37, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

And now attended to. Tim riley talk 10:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Original publication date

I came looking for the original publication date of Physiologie du goût and am surprised to find it's not mentioned. I've found it (1825) on the French Wikipedia article (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physiologie_du_go%C3%BBt), and suggest it might be appropriate to include it here. ӎᴀʀ ₲₳ƝϪѲƝƋ 10:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarGanxona (talk • contribs)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jean Anthelme Brillat-Savarin/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim O'Doherty (talk · contribs) 14:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

GA nomination was withdrawn after some disagreement over style during the first review. I'll look over the article closely soon after publishing this page, but making the first mark in the ground to let Tim know I've seen the withdrawal and renomination. Feel free to ask about any of my comments either here or on my talk page. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:58, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):

   After a quick buzz through the article, I make the following recommendations (but will not insist upon anything, and none are deal-breakers).

• (in English, The Physiology of Taste) -> (The Physiology of Taste): I think that "in English" is probably not needed here, given that we're on en.wikipedia.org, but if this is what the MoS suggests, and I've missed it, keep as is.

• You're right. A bit belt-and-braces: deleted. Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Ancien Régime -> Ancien Régime: should this be italicised? I think not; we wouldn't italicise Fifth Republic, par exemple.

• I see our WP article doesn't, and nor, now I check, does the OED. Certainly should be in romic, I think. Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• (c. 1900 photograph) -> (c. 1900 photograph): MOS:CIRCA

• I'm a bit at sea technically on this. Might I prevail on you to do the honours?

• When the king summoned the Estates General -> When the King summoned the Estates General: MOS:JOBTITLES: "When a title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office, e.g., the Queen, not the queen (referring to Elizabeth II); the Pope, not the pope (referring to Francis)."

• I grow increasingly certain that if one attempts to grapple with the italicisation of job titles one will inevitably go mad, but I have done as you suggest, to stave off madness for now. Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• Brillat-Savarin remained for nearly two years in the US -> Brillat-Savarin remained in the US for nearly two years: I don't have a MoS justification for this, I just thought the construction was a bit odd.

• I don't feel strongly about this, but have changed to your version, which seems fine to me. Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

• I would de-italicise magnus opus and italicise "savarin"; the former because Masterpiece only italicises chef-d'œuvre, and the latter because I believe it to be a case of WP:WORDSASWORDS.

• Both those points are over my head, or above my pay grade, or whatever the current cliché may be. I've happily done as you suggest, without being quite sure why. Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That's all I've really got for now. Feel free to do all of them, none of them, or anywhere in between. More to come soon. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

1. b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   No egregious weasel or peacock terms, the article is laid out well, etc. In the Later years section, could you remove the link to French Wikipedia after L'Académie des Gastronomes, as the article doesn't exist? [Done - What can I have been thinking of? Tim riley talk 14:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a. (reference section):

   The references are formatted correctly. A little later I'll do a spotcheck making sure the references verify the text.

   b. (citations to reliable sources):

   Sources look reliable. As I said, I'll do a manual spotcheck soon enough.

   c. (OR):

   d. (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Earwig gives 9.9%, mostly quotations and titles.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a. (major aspects):

   b. (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article, as written, is neutral, but I'll be checking some of the sources to make sure there isn't anything big about his life being left out. Done. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   A lot of recent changes, but that's to be expected when prepping a GA nominee. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):

   All images have appropriate tags

   b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Captions are good, as is the alternate text for each image.

7. Overall:

   Pass/fail:

   A pleasure working with you again, Tim. Hopefully the review was up to snuff. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

Source spotcheck

Given that it would be a bit cumbersome to drop all of this into the main structure of the review, for ease of both writing and reading, I'll do it here instead. I've picked out a variety of different sources, and checked to see if they verify the article text or not. The following have been accessed via the Internet Archive.

1. 1 -
2. 5 -
3. 10 -
4. 15a -
5. 20 -
6. 25 -
7. 30 -
8. 35a -
9. 40 -
10. 45 -
11. 50 -
12. 55 -
13. 60 -
14. 65 - - I couldn't find it, but maybe it was just because of the edition I was using. I'll trust you here.

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.

"Tell me what you eat, and I will tell you what you are."

@Tim riley: Is there any chance this is related to the expression "you are what you eat"? — VORTEX³⁴²⁷ (Talk!) 16:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I have no expert knowledge at all of this, but I suspect there is no direct connexion, similar though the sentiments are, or may be thought to be. In the 1860s, Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach wrote, "Der Mensch ist, was er ißt" (Mankind is what he eats), but a swift Googling shows that the modern phrase you quote is chiefly associated with an American nutritionist, Victor Lindlahr, who put forward the "you are what you eat" line in the 1930s and 1940s. I have not seen anything to suggest that either Feuerbach or Lindlahr was consciously reflecting Brillat-Savarin's thoughts. Tim riley talk 16:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

David's opinion on whether or not cheese is fattening

Regarding this edit, I do not have full access to David's book, but my very incomplete impression is that David is not solely saying cheese is fattening, but also that it is unnecessary added calories. Anyone following Brillat-Savarin's guidelines would for a meal have plenty of food to sustain them by the time dessert came around... but of course, neither David nor Brillat-Savarin were claiming otherwise.

Regardless, it isn't for us to imply that Brillat-Savarin was incorrect or was being hypocritical by advocating cheese as a dessert, so that wording was not appropriate. An opinion essay from 1984 or earlier is not exactly a WP:MEDRS, and it's not clear that this comment from David provides clarity on Brillat-Savarin specifically. Of course, if an WP:IS talks about David's comment, that would provide context. Grayfell (talk) 20:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

It is appropriate in a "Reputation and influence" section: we're not advocating either side here, we're covering Brillat-Savarin's writings and other people's reactions to and thoughts on them. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think in a subtle way it is taking a side, but I guess I haven't managed to explain that very well.

I introduced the word "apparently" to that section in an edit summary, but that was not intended to be in the article. So who is this apparent to? Is supposed to be apparent to us from the preceding paragraph, or was it apparent to David per the source? If it's to David, the paragraph should be reorganized to make that clear. If we're telling readers that it is apparent to them, it's a subtle bit of editorializing. It does help with the flow of the article, but editorializing is still editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure—I'd say the latter—but I can't say that it is editorialising, even subtly: stating that something is "apparent" should be above board in Wikipedia's book, and isn't on the no-no list at WP:EDITORIALISING, which bans more expressive terms (happily, interestingly, aptly etc). I'd say Tim riley could probably answer your question better than me. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm uncertain what point is being made here. Brillat-Savarin devotes several pages, between pp. 216 and 226 in my edition, to foods to be avoided because fattening; cheese is not among them. Mrs David's comments on his dictum can be found on p. 178 of An Omelette and a Glass of Wine. Tim riley talk 07:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)