Talk:Food security

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
 
WikiProject Disaster management (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Globalization (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Globalization, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Globalization 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human rights (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sanitation (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sanitation, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sanitation 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Useful link proposed[edit]

The following link was proposed for addition to the article, but the article has a comment that tries to discourage the addition of any further links because the existing list is already long. I think this is a good site to add:

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed project[edit]

I am a student from Rice University in Houston, Tx, and I am thinking of extensively editing this page as part of a class project. Though the page is quite long, many sections lack adequate referencing. However, I have seen talk on this page that discourages the addition of any more references. I would like to remove some references that are not necessary (such as when one sentence has multiple references). If anyone has suggestions of improvements they would like to see, let me know. I would love to see this page taken up to a "Good article" rating. Khatchell (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Revision Proposal[edit]

As part of a class assignment, I have decided to revise this page with the hope of bringing it to a "Good article" rating. Now that I have completed a good amount of research on the topic, I would like to begin making improvements to the article. First of all, I would like to address the concerns raised by the banners at the top of the page: the long introduction, lack of citations, and outdated information. In order to do this, I will be introducing new information, relocating information and restructuring parts of the article.

Most importantly, I am proposing to change the definition of food security to one that is more descriptive and widely accepted. The current definition only mentions "availability" of and "access" to food. This is the definition I am proposing, from the World Food Summit in 1996. FAO. November 13, 1996. World Food Summit Plan of Action. Rome. http://www.fao.org/wfs/index_en.htm "Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life."

I will also be adding new sections on "Availability", "Access", "Stability", and "Utilization". These topics are cited by numerous sources as being instrumental in understanding food security. I would also like to add a brief section about the "right to adequate food", which the UN supports: United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 1999 The right to adequate food. General Comment 12. Geneva. http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/3d02758c707031d58025677f003b73b9

The rest of my work will involve reorganizing information in the article. I would like to create the headings "Causes of food insecurity" and "Effects of food insecurity". This will make it easier for readers to access this information. I would also like to create the heading "Effort to increase food security", which will incorporate information from the sections "Economic approaches" as well as other sections. I feel that the section "Gender and food security" takes up too large a proportion of the article, though it is undoubtedly an important issue. I would like to condense the section and remove uncited information. I would like to discuss the deletion some parts of the article. For example, I feel that the information under "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" has no place in this article. The "Role of the World Bank" section may also need to be removed. In general, I am not sure how to approach the sections of the article that are not cited. Some of the information seems to be opinion, but I would appreciate advice before I remove material. I would like to know the opinions of other editors about these deletions. In general, I will be attempting to reconnect broken links, as well as correcting mistakes in linking to other articles (how often to make words a link, etc). I have seen comments on the talk page that suggest limiting the addition of new sources. However, I feel that this article is missing key information. Please let me know any thoughts before I begin. Khatchell (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this page certainly needs work. If you can start off rather slowly, limiting each change to a particular section of the page or a particular topic, that will make it easier for us overworked wikipedians to follow along and see what we think of your approach. You might also want to think in terms or splitting out some material to make a new page, if removing the excess seems too harsh. There is so much material that could be added somewhere, such as the troubles in Colombia that are discussed here, but it will require a lot of contributors to get good polished coverage of agriculture and food issues into wikipedia, so I hope that you won't exhaust yourself with this massive task. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your willingness to advise on this page. I am the course professor - please let me know if you have any concerns as Khatchell works on the page.DStrassmann (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
Hei everyone! We are a group of 4 students who were planning to edit the Gender and Food Security sections of this article, but saw that there already exists a revision project on this page. Khatchell would it be okay if we take over the Gender section? CaroEhr (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Khatchell and all. I agree with Sminthopsis, this article is really in bad shape. I don't remember ever reading a worse lead section. I agree with Khatchell in that a total revision is needed. IMO this is going to be a HUGE project, plus, in my experience a rewrite is even more difficult than starting out from scratch. I look forward to offering feedback as Khatchell begins his/her editing. I can suggest a few copy editors that may be willing to help polish the article once the major work is done (if they are needed). Good luck! Gandydancer (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Khatchell, Sminthopsis and all, I am one of the members of the group CaroEhr mentioned. As we are planning to review the section of "gender and food security" sub-section, in parallel to existing plans to shorten the current sub-section, we plan to make it as a separate page with a hyperlink in the existing food security article with a short summary. We would love to hear your comments.BurcuMentes (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I wasn't planning on tackling the "Gender and food security" section beyond condensing it, so your work would really help. Feel free to take over that section. I agree that a new page for that information is necessary to decrease the length of this page. I have begun rearranging some of the content in the article, since I keep finding sections with incorrect headings, etc. I feel comfortable researching and adding new content, but I would appreciate help determining what sections need to be expanded and what new sections need to be added. I would appreciate comments on the section "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" at the end of the article. I do not feel that the information and quote are important for the article. I would like to delete it, but Sminthopsis84 disagrees. Any opinions? Khatchell (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Folks, please let us know here when "Gender and food security" becomes a real page rather than a redirect, so we can watch its progress. (All new pages run some risk of being treated as not sufficiently notable for wikipedia.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments. In parallel to World Food Summit's definition, we are planning to focus on food access, availability, food use and stability dimensions. In the existing article, we realized an excessive focus on “availability” - women as food producers- and other elements seems to be quite under-developed. We will let you know when we make it a real page. Please feel free to convey your comments in the meantime.BurcuMentes (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
A great start would be for you to identify and list the sources you intend to use here. Good articles start with good sources. Also, taking any article to WP:GA status is a hefty task; I recommend making a single section of this article GA worthy as a reasonable goal for a group of students, especially if this group is feeling ambitious and wanting to start a new subarticle also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Blue Rasberry and dear wikipedians, we are creating a new page "Gender and Food Security" today. We will provide a small summary in the main "food security" page. You can see our references and the content in the new page. We will be glad to hear your proposals, recommendations and amendments. BurcuMentes (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear wikipedians, adding to the comment of BurcuMentes, we would like to inform you that we are editing the paragraph under "Gender and Food Security" and rearranging the contents under the new article. We are preparing the contents of availability, access, utilization, and stability, corresponding to the food security article. Thank you very much.Seul0417 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 00:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities[edit]

Khatchell (talk) asks above for opinions on whether to delete the section "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities", so I'll set that off in the usual wikipedia talk-page style as a new section laid out as for voting.

  • Oppose - I see it as very appropriate where it now is in the section on "Risks to food security", along with intellectual property rights and those other risks. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not only do I oppose, if anything it should be expanded. If I may get on a soapbox for a moment, this is just one more example of the way that wealthy nations manage to point to all they are doing for world hunger while their true motivation has been their own self-interests. I have found this to be true again and again when I look into what the wealthy claim to be be efforts to assist the poor nations. The disaster that NAFTA corn has brought to Mexican farmers and the failure of the billions in aid that was promised to help the poor of Haiti come to mind. Furthermore, it should never be assumed that world organizations are not influenced by politics either. It is well-known that to this day the UN refuses to accept the fact that they are responsible for the Haiti cholera epidemic. Gandydancer (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I feel that the section is poorly titled, and it only presents one viewpoint. The wording is too casual. In order to merit a place in this article, it should be expanded to include multiple viewpoints and edited to improve clarity. Khatchell (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that! I did not mean to say that it should exist as is, but considering that the entire article is being worked on, I assumed that it would be improved. Gandydancer (talk) 15:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that expansion sounds good. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support This material should not be included without more explication of the issues and viewpoints, of which there are many. DStrassmann (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Khatchell's statement was, " I feel that the information under "Treating food the same as other internationally traded commodities" has no place in this article." I thought that I made it clear that I do not believe that it should be excluded, but that it definitely should be expanded on and included. I Oppose any line of thought that suggests that it has no place in this article. I Support the suggestion that it needs some work. Since Khatchell was asking for feedback, I felt I was giving feedback on improving the article. Gandydancer (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Comment Yes, we don't usually delete material that could use work, since it can act as an important place-holder for future work on the encyclopedia and as an hint to readers of what else they might like to investigate. It can be easier to fix poor text than to start again from scratch. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sufficiently expert on the topic to comment, but I'll just note that I agree that we should not delete sections just because they are weak, unless they are factually wrong. Improving an article doesn't have to mean fixing everything wrong with it. FYI, I am one of the online ambassadors for the course Khatchell and her fellow students are on. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Economic approaches[edit]

The "Economic approaches" section of this article has no citations, and I am not sure that there is a specific "Westernized" view that deserves mentioning. I'm also not sure if the "Food sovereignty" and "Food justice" approaches are prominent. I know that the current section is in bad shape, but I have not researched economic approaches so I am not sure of what notable approaches there are. If anyone has any knowledge of the most prominent economic approaches to food security, this information would be very useful. Khatchell (talk) 17:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly agree with your view on the "Westernized" view and believe that it should just be deleted. However, IMO Food sovereignty is one of, or perhaps even the major, contributor to world food insecurity, and there are plenty of sources that support this point of view. The Food justice section could go as it fits very well into the Food sovereignty section. Since this article is too long per WP suggested length, it could have a summary here with a link to the main article. Gandydancer (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
For clarification, do you think the food sovereignty view leads to food security, or food insecurity? And you support deleting the "Food justice" section, or combining the information in the food sovereignty section? I am going to delete the "Westernized view" and I don't think this will lessen the quality of the article in any way. I agree that a summary would be perfect, perhaps I can work on that next. Khatchell (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and moved the section up to where it seemed to fit rather than give it its own heading at the bottom. It's not that I feel that it is unimportant--in my view it is of major importance in that it contrasts the general views that more massive farms using GM seed, more globalization, etc., will ease world hunger. Around the world small farmers have moved into cities and they are now eating imported foods that they once grew on their own small farms. The last few years one is seeing encouraging changes in South America. Gandydancer (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Part of modernisation is an increase in productivity, hence a decrease in the number of people actually growing food. I'm surprised to see that framed as a bad thing. bobrayner (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
That's because you are not looking at the entire picture. The thousands of people that are pushed off of the small farms are then unemployed. Many of them move to the cities resulting in high rates of crime, lack of housing, tax burdens, etc. Or they move to other countries looking for work, such as we have here in the US, where they work for what ever they can get, which is not much because they are at the mercy of corporate power without governmental support. This is just barely touching the surface of the problems that our present farming practices have caused, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince anyone about what I consider to be quite obvious, anymore than they could convince me of otherwise. Gandydancer (talk) 23:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
It's disappointing that people still believe in the luddite fallacy. If you'd like a "bigger picture", try plotting human development indices against agricultural productivity, per country; or plot them over time, if you'd rather the big picture was historical. Personally, I'm happy with a fulfilling high-tech job, modern public services, and disposable income; you're probably not toiling in the fields trying to raise just enough food to feed your household. bobrayner (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That type of development and food security are at odds for several reasons. One is that children grow up not knowing how to produce food, which makes them vulnerable. Trying to raise just enough food to feed your family is just one possible scenario. Ravishing the land to permit highly mechanized, high input (of fertilizer and pesticide) farming does not lead to food security except in the short term. "The luddite fallacy" is rather provocative language that I hope you will rethink. High-tech jobs, modern services, disposable income, and fulfilling jobs in primary production of high quality food are perfectly compatible. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Non sequiteurs are no more helpful than the luddite fallacy. So what if many children don't learn how to operate a combine harvester? They don't have to, because we have modern agriculture with higher productivity. Most children won't learn how to make antibiotics or computers either; it doesn't make them vulnerable, because specialisation is quite normal in modern society (and is a prerequisite for it, in fact). bobrayner (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Page Review[edit]

Overall I believe the most recent set of additions to this page by User:Khatchell, have gone a long way towards improving the overall quality of this page. Coverage of the 4 pillars of food security enhances the content of the page by providing a framework for examining the issue. All of the writing is well cited, suggesting a strong academic basis for the writing, and is well written. My only question would be: Is the multimedia content (images/videos) on this page excessive? I found that the sheer number somewhat distracted from the content of the page, slightly decreasing readability. Clearly, a fairly simple thing to consider and work on. Well done! Jpoles1 (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I planned to bring this up as well. I was thinking to remove the barley and the storage tanks photos. As for the others, I don't find them excessive--but I tend to like a lot of photos, etc. I plan to change the large greenhouse one I added as I later found a better one. I'll make those changes now and see what others think. Yes, good work Khatchell! Gandydancer (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
PS: I see that the lead still needs work. Also, the article is quite long if Khatchell wants to try for a GA. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:Jpoles1, User:Khatchell has done a great job of improving this article. I think the citing makes the additions very credible, and overall it was fairly easy to read. There were a couple of sections where the wording or sentence structure could be a little clearer, but overall it was a informative and straightforward read. One thing that you could consider adding that may make the contribution better is a map showing the rates of undernourishment for each country. Great job! Momo137 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for the comments! I agree that the article had a few too many images, and I will not look to add any more. I will work on the wording in a few of the sections I added, and then I will probably edit a few more sections. I agree that the lead section is still too long, so I will work on making it an introduction/summary of the article. I may also work on editing the sections that should be summaries, starting with the economic approaches section. Let me know if there are any topics I should consider! Perhaps this article will be ready for a GA nomination soon. Khatchell (talk) 19:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

GE crops[edit]

What do you all think of removing the first mention of GE crops: Biotechnology for smallholders in the (sub)tropics? GE crops is again brought up and any info from this section could be included in the later section. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I support combining the relevant information into one section. The title of that section is too specific, anyways. Khatchell (talk) 19:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The agriculture-hunger-poverty nexus section[edit]

This section begins with a long copy vio. Here: [1] That's as far as I looked, but I'd guess that there is more copy vio.

Basically this long para goes on and on about the fact that poor people are stuck in poverty. It is not properly sourced and needs to be looked at, so rather than try to rework the copy vio I'll leave it for now.

BTW, I believe that the book I linked to provides some essential information re the importance of small local farms and gardens to decrease food insecurity. Gandydancer (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

New Sections to SNAP Page[edit]

Seeking feedback on the following

New Sections[edit]

Eligibility[edit]

Applying for SNAP benefits[edit]

Subsections Under Impact[edit]

Food Security[edit]

Poverty[edit]

Diet Quality[edit]

Thank you, Kalyncweber (talk) 17:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is this about the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program article? It certainly needs tidying up. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sub-section on fertiliser?[edit]

I am surprised to see so little about fertiliser in this article. Surely fertiliser is a bit component of agricultural productivity and food security. I think there should be a sub-section on fertiliser which could then link to the main article on fertiliser. Connected to the fertiliser issue is the issue of phosphorus being a limited resource which will go up in price. Here we could link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_phosphorus EvM-Susana (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of this article was recently blanked[edit]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: In your last revison of this page, a part of the lead section was accidentally removed. Can you repair this part of the article? Jarble (talk) 17:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was a botch job, wasn't it? I'm looking into it. Thanks for calling to my attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Now what do you think? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Global catastrophic risks[edit]

First I could not confirm a sentence was supported by its RS, and then Stonejm9 (talk · contribs) changed the ref to a 1993 paper, which I think also fails verification. Given what appears to be two unsuccessful attempts to provide needed references, I struck the new disputed text until this can be resolved. The struck text, with updated 1993 cite, is

A number of global catastrophic risks threaten food security. Earth has undergone dramatic temperature fluctuations in the past, with roughly 10°C regional changes in one decade.[1]

Stonejm9, can you please point to the salient sentence or paragraph you are relying on? Also, this is just a single paper and from 1993 besides. If that is a robust finding, there must be additional sources to beef it up. Can you suggest any? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

refs for this thread[edit]

References

  1. ^ Greenland Ice Core Project (GRIP) Members 1993 "Climate instability during the last interglacial period recorded in the GRIP ice core." Nature 364, 203–207.

Too many See Also and External Links[edit]

I think there are far too many "see also" and external links here. This should be cut down to the really important ones. Terms that are in the main text do not need to be repeated under "see also". I am going to make a start to cut it down.EvM-Susana (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)