Talk:Food Not Bombs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Idea for Sourcing[edit]

Consider adding some information about how the federal government has contributed to the problem of people living on the streets. For example, how public housing have been turned into for-profit developments, making them unavailable to low-income people.I think this could be a great example to flesh out your contribution. Heres a source I found that could maybe help with this- [1] Npfarr (talk) 16:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Messman, Terry; Gans, Lydia (2012). ""Homeless Push Back—Take Over Vacant Building in San Francisco."". Race, Poverty & the Environment. vol.19: pp. 53-54. {{cite journal}}: |page= has extra text (help); |volume= has extra text (help)

Overall Analysis[edit]

I'm not sure how much or what part was contributed to the group project I will be referencing, but all in all this is a pretty sound page in terms of publishable content. Aside from a few grammatical errors that I saw in the intro, on the surface, this looks to be pretty fine. However, some of the sources may need to be double checked and updated, seeing as how the article could have been up for a couple of years. Lorealhawk (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lorealhawk: do you feel that sources need to be checked when articles have been online for a couple of years, more so than if articles have been online for a few months or a couple of decades? MPS1992 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Lorealhawk: MPS1992 (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Analysis - I think this article is very strong and actually really interesting. I never knew about this program and I think it is great. The content is strong with evidence but there are some aspects that are one-sided. I found a few run-on sentences but those are very easy to fix. Overall I think it is a strong informative article.Hengle (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review Overall, I found the 'Food Not Bombs' page to be very informative, thorough, and well-researched. I will say however that it is important to remain objective. At times I felt like the writers were supporters of 'Food Not Bombs' rather than objective learners. I found this to be a problem especially in the section entitled "Lack of Nutrition in Neo-Liberalism". Would it be possible to do more research on some of the active chapters of the organization? This might help flesh out your page. Lastly, in the "In Anarchy" section, I didn't know what you were referring to when you said, "social understanding" ("leading to a large misuse of natural resources and social understanding"). Ksugseed (talk) 20:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After Reading this article, I found it to be very informative and an interesting read. I had noticed that there are small but noticeable grammatical errors throughout the article. I would go back through and proofread to clean up those minor mistakes. I thought the article had a lot of deal and had covered a lot of key points. However, I believe when it comes to the topic of effects on the economy, There should be more examples and understanding. Maybe you should take about how it affected certain areas within the economy. How does it affect state local economies and broaden the effect on the national level? Also, the last sentence under effects of the economy should be looked at. there should be a reference to that remark to hold it credible. Bgreen29 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Davis Peer review - Hey guys, I thought that your article was very good at outlining the topic you guys chose. You explained what the group does, the history behind it, and some other interesting things about it. Generally, there is not much I would change about this article except for one thing. The section "Lack of Nutrition in Neo-Liberalism" I think is very unnecessary to the topic. If this is something that the organization actually says, I think that you should specify that because the way it is written, it seems like it is trying to defend or voucher for the group. It actually kind of seems like it is politically biased. This isn't good for a Wikipedia article so I would recommend removing it. Other than that, the only other things are some sentences in the article which are:

"Food Not Bombs is an all-volunteer global movement that shares free vegan meals as a protest to war and poverty. " I would remove this sentence because you already say this in your introduction.

"Food Not Bombs was founded in 1980 in Cambridge, Massachusetts by anti-nuclear activists Keith McHenry,[3] Jo Swanson, Mira Brown, Susan Eaton, Brian Feigenbaum, C.T. Lawrence Butler,[4] Jessie Constable and Amy Rothstien" I would remove all of the names because it is unnecessary.

"The first arrests for sharing free food were on August 15, 1988 at the entrance to Golden Gate Park in San Francisco, California" I was unaware that you could get arrested for food so I would try to add that to this or specify why specifically they were arrested.

"During a presentation to the University of Texas at Austin in 2006, an FBI counter-terrorism official labeled Food Not Bombs and Indymediaas having possible terrorist connections" Specify why they thought that the group had terrorist connections because that is important information.

Those are the only complaints I have. Other than that, great article.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Food Not Bombs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute[edit]

This article seems 100% sympathetic to the organization, including undue, epic legal & political details in unencyclopedic terms. 68.3.248.181 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Care to quote examples from the article to support the tags you added? Hussierhussier1 (talk) 05:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tucson Food Not Bombs is now Tucson Food Share.why?[edit]

Why 2600:8800:7D14:7B00:4435:FAF:57BD:1F6A (talk) 14:58, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Food_Not_Bombs&oldid=1195621318"