Talk:Slow Food

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Slow Food UK[edit]

In case anyone is wondering, or willing to debate my most recent edit, The UK Slow Food foundation was created recently, and here is a link to the Sloweb article about Slow Food UK. This article comes from Google, but the publication date is December, hence the wording of my editing. I'll change my diction on new years eve, I promise!

--Civilcasualty 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Judging by this article in The Guardian from February of this year, it was swiftly torn down and rebuilt. The article does include the useful fact that, at least as of February 2009, Slow Food UK had 2,200 subscriptions (at £35 a pop, which means it raised £77,000 assuming that all of the subscriptions were paid and not e.g. promotional or honorary, and furthermore the article doesn't say whether the subscriptions are one-time, annual, monthly, etc, although it strongly implies that they are annual). -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted most of this section, as the contents was 5 years out-of-date.

I will update numbers when I hear back from SF UK.Archolman User talk:Archolman 19:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Slow food vs. Slow Food?[edit]

Fuzzy distinctions here at present between the concept (slow food), the sociocultural movement (slow food movement), and the formal organization (Slow Food). Any suggestions for how to make this clearer? Also, is/are the Slow Food organization(s) formally incorporated? (where?) for profit? as not-for-profit organization(s)? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the answers to my own questions are contained in Slow Food's most recent, 2011 Financial Statement, which among other things, lays out a formal organizational structure, and provides information on assets, receivables, income, etc. For FY 2011, the income was €1,074,684. The answer to the basic question is on the organization's website: "Slow Food is an international member-supported nonprofit association." As is, this article is much more about this formal, nonprofit association, than about the concept or broader movement... Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The practical question is whether the article lead should be revised to reflect this current emphasis on the formal organization/ association. And perhaps there is a need for a separate article, or section of this article, on the concept and movement... Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The article to me looks very much like it is entirely about the organisation, membership numbers, locations, goals etc. But I can see the name of the article might be confusing. Maybe it should be renamed "Slow Food (organization)"?
Like you say, an article about "Slow food", the concept, may be possible. Sionk (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply and comment. Yes, I agree that a revised title, Slow Food (organization), would make the focus of this article much clearer; and that a separate article (e.g. 'Slow food', which currently redirects here) on the broader concept and movement also would be useful. Any other editors following this article have further thoughts and suggestions on this? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
P.S. There seems to be a whole branding thing going on, viz. the related article, Slow Movement, which adds further confusion to the distinctions between the formal (networked?) organization(s) or association(s), and the broader movement. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm struggling to find good sources that talk about slow food (lower case), the concept, as opposed to Slow Food (upper case), the movement. If I could find a handful of sources (independent of Carlo Petrini) to source an article, I'd be bold and rename/create the articles. Slow Food is almost always capitalized and refers to Petrini's organization. There seems a vague acceptance that slow food is the opposite of fast food, but that would be a somewhat flaky excuse for a separate article, in my view. In the meantime I'll keep looking. Sionk (talk) 00:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Slow Science which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 24 January 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). sst✈ (speak now) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Slow FoodSlow food – [Update: But see split proposal added.] The topic is not an organization but a generalized movement or approach, thus not a proper name, and should be lower-cased per MOS:ISMCAPS, and WP:CONSISTENCY policy. See already: slow movement (culture), slow architecture, slow cinema, slow design, slow education, slow gardening, slow living, slow marketing, slow parenting, slow photography, slow programming, slow reading, slow television. The only other one that needs to be down-cased is Slow Science, covered in its own RM. (Slow Money should remain uppercased because, like Cittaslow, it's the legal name of an organization, thus a proper name. If that article is rewritten to cover the concept or social movement of "slow money", not just that specific organization's work, it too would be down-cased.) Every single other "slow movement" article is lower-cased. To pre-address the most obvious objection: It doesn't matter that materials from within the movement upper-case it. That is true of virtually everything covered at MOS:ISMCAPS, and the rationale is invalid because of WP:INDY. It is also the WP:Specialized style fallacy to suggest that WP is bound to capitalize things, for a general audience, the same way specialized publications do for an insider audience, and this is even more true of "isms" than it is of things like sciences and occupations, because the capitalization by the adherents of doctrines is inherently promotional and thus a WP:NPOV problem.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  12:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional rationales:

  • A valid result of this RM would also be to split into a slow food movement article and Slow Food (organization) article. I now lean toward this proposal.
  • The bottom of the Slow Food organization's website gives handy stats that prove there's a distinction between the movement, which is says has "1 000 000 Supporters", and the organization, which has "100 000 Members" (obviously rounded figures). So, the movement is 10× the size of the organization, and that likely makes the former not the latter the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
  • A Google News search for "slow food movement" shows that usage is wildly mixed between capitalized and lower case versions [1], and MOS:CAPS says to use lower case in such cases. We get this result even with a great deal of confusion between the organization and the overall movement sharing its name, which would account for many cases of the capitalization; that is, even with a strong bias in favor of capitalization, the independent press results are still almost 50/50, so this is a clear indication that the press treats the movement as a common noun when it realizes it's a broad movement not just an organization.
  • On MOS:ISMCAPS: Diffuse, general worldwide movements are not treated as proper nouns on Wikipedia. See free culture movement, anti-globalization movement, prison abolition movement, anti-nuclear movement, technocracy movement, women's liberation movement, men's movement, etc., etc., and of course many more without "movement" in the title. When they're capitalized it's because they're formal organizations, act as if they are with centralized leadership, or are regional/national and cohesive and treated as proper nouns by the vast majority of independent reliable sources. It's significant here that the slow food movement is explicitly part of anti-globalization movement (our lead says this prominently), which is not the "Anti-Globalization Movement".

Added (after the first response below, by Sionk) 03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC),  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼ 

  • Oppose - contrary to what you say in your first sentence, it is a formal organisation and "Slow Food" is a proper name. See its own website where the name is capitalised. The article is about the organisation and its sub-groups, rather than a general approach to food. Sionk (talk) 12:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
    • But this article isn't about that, except as a subtopic. The article is about the worldwide slow food movement, and covers it in the UK, US, and Australia in detail. Here's the entire lead: "Slow Food is an international movement founded by Carlo Petrini in 1986. Promoted as an alternative to fast food, it strives to preserve traditional and regional cuisine and encourages farming of plants, seeds and livestock characteristic of the local ecosystem. It was the first established part of the broader Slow Movement. Its goals of sustainable foods and promotion of local small businesses are paralleled by a political agenda directed against globalization of agricultural products." These national movements, as such, have no direct connection to the organization that inspired the idea. The organization as an entity does have affiliates, but by it's own claims, the org's total membership only accounts for 10% of the slow food movement!

      This is basically a WP:DABCONCEPT page that's not written like one, leading to a WP:COATRACK or two-topics-one-article problem. If the Italian and somewhat internationalized organization is clearly notable in its own right, so it should be at it own article, at Slow Food (organization) (capitalized like that because it's a proper noun). @Sionk: what do you think about a split?  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  03:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure where you get that idea. Maybe the use of the word 'movement' in the lead section is misleading (though being a movement doesn't prevent its name being capitalised). The "Organization" section is very clearly that the national groups are organizations, not simply a concept. The secondary sources also make clear the names are capitalised [2][3][4][5]. My understanding is that the different national organisations are more of a loose federation. I did an extensive college project on Slow Food, so hopefully I know what I'm talking about. Slow Food in Italy is undoubtedly notable, being the originator of the concept. Sionk (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Circular argument. I already said where I got the idea: Our article covers both a general social movement, and a specific organization and its regional affiliates. The organization's own website says in a huge graphic that their membership only accounts for 10% of the movement.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  08:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
You see to be arguing against yourself now. If the article contains two subjects, then it should be split not renamed. But I'm not really sure how this could be done, when the concept of "slow food" seems to be based on the goals and policies of Slow Food. However, if you are moving towards the idea of a split, maybe we can discuss the logistics. Alternatively, rather than ignore all reliable sources and tell every contributor they're wrong, why not produce some non-Wikipedia evidence to prove it is a movement not an organisation? Maybe another alternative would be to merge any 'movement' info into Slow movement (culture) (and remove it from here) as suggested by the current merger proposal? Sionk (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It doesn't matter in the least whether the article is about the Slow Food organisation or the Slow Food movement or both, as both are proper names and thus capitalised in Wikipedia. The names of significant movements are capitalised here: see, e.g., Arab Spring, Occupy Wall Street (N.B. not "occupy Wall Street") or those listed here. In general, if something isn't broken, there's no need to mend it; and this is fine as it stands. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • It does matter, because MOS:ISMS is clear that social movements are not proper nouns. The above is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument against WP:POLICY and should be discounted by the closer.  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  01:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a proper name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Housekeeping issues[edit]

This lead of the article could be longer and use citations – four factual statements are made in it but without any reference. They are also paraphrased from the “about us” section of the Slow Food organisation website. The cited source, for example in reference 1. and 2., is often the official website of the movement, which may not be a reliable source. This is especially true considering that the topic should address the movement as a bigger picture itself rather than the “Slow Food” organisation. There are several claims that still require citations, particularly statements like “As of 2013, Slow Food USA has a membership of roughly 12,000, down from over 30,000 in 2008” that have statistics in them. The “Critcisms” section, although well-cited, needs more diverse points of view because it currently includes only one voice. Hashmita7 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Questions About Slow Food[edit]

Why did the amount of Slow Food chapters decrease from 2011 to now? Were the Slow Food chapters unsuccessful in getting people to see the benefits of a more fresh and healthy diet? Was there not enough funding for the existing slow food chapters? (LOL190 (talk) 05:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

May be it was because they were successful in convincing people (and businesses), so their campaign became less pressing? There's certainly been a rise in 'Farmers Markets' and supermarkets have become more wily in offering a wider variety of foods. Interesting question all the same. Sionk (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

How did Slow Food become popular in San Francisco? When was Slow Food introduced to San Francisco? Why was it dubbed Slow Food Nation in 2008? ( (talk) 22:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

What does Slow Food do in Japan? Does it have the similar Forgotten Foods fairs that other countries have? Where is the largest Slow Food city in Japan? (LOL190 (talk) 22:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC))

Might I suggest you look on the organisation's website for some of these answers? It would seem the sensible place to start. Sionk (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The Slow Food article could say more about Chipotle’s partnership with Slow Food USA. The source for Chipotle’s partnership has a lot of good information that could be added to the article. The link for the second reference “Slow Food History” doesn’t work. That should be fixed. A citation is needed in the “Organization” section of the article. A citation is also needed in the “Objectives” section of the article. A citation is also needed in the “United Kingdom” section of the article. Otherwise there are good sources, everything is relevant to the article, and it is neutral. — Atate27 (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Social implications/sources[edit]

This article did a good job at providing background knowledge and information on this subject. Splitting it up by country and highlighting the differences was good because it showed that each country is different. The socioeconomic section was a bit small, and I think there could be a lot more information about how this movement is viewed amongst the population as well as how it affects people. This movement could have several social implications and these should be looked into and could possibility be worth noting. Someone should also look at updating the sources. Several that I clicked on aren't there anymore saying "page not found". It also seems that out of what sources are working, most of them are from a slow food official webpage so the information could be biased and have an angle favoring slow food. Dz14 (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Article Critiques[edit]

One section of the article that I found distracting was the piece on the past publicity efforts of Slow Food. I felt that the information was not as pertinent to the article.

Another section that I thought could be expanded upon was the objectives. I appreciated that all the objectives of the movement were stated but I felt that they could all be more in depth instead of a single sentence.

Pipertownsend (talk) 05:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)