Talk:Slow Food/Archive 1

Clean-up

I'm confused - at the beginning of the article Slow Food is a movement, at the end it is an organization with a budget. And the link didn't work. Anyone know about this? Rmhermen 21:45 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not really. But is well known in Italy—do you know, out of habit I nearly wiki-linked Italy as if it might need clarification! And it’s easy in a way to see that it’s part of a strand of thinking (and behaving) about food that has been around for a long time. In England, where I live, CAMRA, an extraordinarily (not totally) successful pressure-group which campaigned in the 1970s for the preservation real (cask- or bottle-conditioned, live-yeast) ale, and the maintenance of local breweries with their varying styles, would be a prime example. Before that Elizabeth David stressed to us Brits the regional variations in French cookery. Much, much earlier William Cobbett told us to grow our own mustard because of the viciously poisonous additives that the commercial producers were employing. (Then again he wanted us to innovate by growing American maize and his wife told us how to turn that into Italian-style polenta dressed with pesto—as far as I can determine, the first written description of the Ligurian pesto in any language). But I am not sure that it would be very easy to write a good and (in Wikipedia’s slightly dreary sense—but then encylopaedias have to be a bit boring) NPOV article about the movement as opposed to the organisation. Oh dear, I am rambling. I think that this article needs a bit of a clean-up, but I am not convinced that it is absolutely vital immediately to make a big deal of distinguishing between the organization and the movement.

Today the link to the slow food site is working, albeit a bit slowly.

—Ian Spackman 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"But is well known in Italy—do you know"

Ok I am not living in Italy but very close-by ;) I occasionally visit northern Italy and I have to say i have NEVER noticed ANY slow food thing there. (But of course Italy is famous for good food) That is not to say this movement might not be popular but could there be a better analysis of this movement please? I mean even in my country there are things I am totally unaware because it might be in the part far to the west :P

Links

Currently we have links named

• Become a member!
• Slow Food USA Merchandise
• Big Picture TV Free videos

What do they bring to mind? —Ian Spackman 21:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SlowFood.gif

Image:SlowFood.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Construction of highway as directly increasing fuel costs

My edit on 07:04, 30 January 2008 Nahraana, removes the "the construction of motorways" as taking part in the "true cost of fuel". Shipping lane and military interventions OK, but why construction of motorways? (Maybe I am missing a point - but, as the edit undone didn't have any supporting reason in the "Edit description" field, I think it is good to discuss a bit) Nahraana (talk) 07:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

One-sided discussion

It seems to me this article could use some discussion about affordability, availability, urban population growth, and basic economics behind the movement. From a first glimpse it seems that such a movement would just cause food prices to increase, consumer choice to disappear and diets of populations to become insular. I almost get the feeling that this movement is primarily driven by people with high disposable incomes looking down at the working class for not being able to afford expensive organic local grown crops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.245.194 (talk) 02:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a discussion, this is an article on the Slow Food Organization who describes the organization and the ideas it advocates. Wikipedia is not the place for "discussion" based on OR. GhePeU (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Self promotion

Self promotion by one Isabella Dalla Ragione seems the most likely purpose for the insertion of this ad-like copy touting at length each product of her orchid and barely relatung to the Slow Food article.

"Its politics have alienated Isabella Dalla Ragione, an arborist in Perugia who cares without outside support for a pomaro, or family orchard, of heritage apples, pears, plums, cherries, medlars and quinces in San Lorenzo di Lerchi, northwest of of Perugia, and calls her vocation archeologia arborea, "tree archaeology".: "they really only exist to promote themselves", she told a New Yorker journalist in 2008.[5]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.166.204.188 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

small edit(s)

I changed the NYTimes quote under the criticisms section. It was previously written almost word for word, but not acknowledged as a quote or paraphrase of a particular critic's point of view. 67.101.1.141 (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Impact

The impact section needs work. Currently it reads "Statistics show that Europe, and Germany in particular, is a much bigger consumer of organics than the US. (source) Slow Food has contributed to the growing awareness of health concerns in Europe, as evidenced by this fact, but on society as a whole, Slow Food has had little effect. An example of this is the fact that tourists visit Slow Food restaurants more than locals..." It does not follow that Europe's consumption of organic food is a consequence of the Slow Food movement, and indeed it seems highly unlikely; and there is no source provided for the assertion that tourists visit Slow Food restaurants more than locals. It sounds plausible, but I doubt there exists a source for this anywhere. It reads like one man's personal impression. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Critical about Criticism

In looking for a reference for Slow Food, I found this Wikipedia article, which overall needs some work. I flagged the Criticism part, but see problems with the whole subject.

A 2008 story from the New York Times Style Section hardly qualifies as a neutral and encyclopaedic reference. The Slow Food movement or organisation may merit criticism, but this section fails to deliver. The first paragraph quotes two people's opinions... one from what appears to be a competitor and the second from an unnamed ex-member. This is hardly good scholarship. It is fine for a newspaper style story that is read and then becomes liner for the cat box. It is inappropriate for an encyclopaedia.

The second paragraph is political, generalised and is unsupported by any facts. It appears to be written from a right-wing perspective of left-wing organisations, except for the last bit which then puts forward an economic argument. This also is written from a distinctly American slant. Over the past decade, America has become exceedingly polarised, with the red vs blue state, NBC/ABC/CBS vs Fox type rhetoric becoming part of the culture. In this dual, Americas seem to form a set of icons in which merely mentioning a particular organisation (such as Greenpeace or National Rifle Association) evokes a complete set of value judgements. Elitism vs the ordinary Joe are part of this mantra, which tends to reduce any argument down to a level in which intelligence and reasoned consideration has little place. If the article was about Slow Food in America, it may have some validity, but given that it is an international born (Italy), and internationally spread movement or organisation, the whole article needs a major overhaul.

The fact is that food is the essence of life. Don't eat, you die. Food used to come from local farms and gardens, and it had great variety. In the past century, this changed, as the Industrial Revolution made its way to the farms and the food we eat. One could just as easily argue that the Slow Food movement is a conservative movement offended by the radical changes the past century has wrought. However, these left-wing, right-wing arguments are best left for blogs and the op-ed pages, and best left out of Wikipedia.

I suggest the whole criticism part be deleted, and left blank until someone does proper, neutral research that cites factual information worthy of publication on Wikipedia. Surely by now there are respected, neutral academics who are studying the subject who can be approached and asked to edit this section. ClassicalScholar (talk) 08:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with ClassicalScholar, above. The entire criticism part should be deleted and replaced with something neutral that is not tainted with the "Tea Party" mentality of it's author. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CTwikiman (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

University of Wisconsin/"Slow Food USA" section)

Very large paragraph has been added about the Slow Food projects of the University of Wisconsin. It is disproportionately large for the article (which is about the global Slow Food movement), provides no independent, reliable sources for the info and reads very much like an advert for the U o W written by someone closely connected to it. All not good!!! If info is to be added, please write briefly and neutrally, providing independent sources for the information. Sionk (talk) 16:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement; but, even beyond that, it makes for the majority of the "Slow Food USA" section, which is indeed poorly written, talks predominately about Slow Food from the point of view of American college campuses, aside from which it is seemingly written by someone from the University of Wisconsin who has perhaps taken material from promotional literature. What's more, as the user above points out, this discussion makes up a "disproportionately" large part of the article, whereas the other parts are not even well developed and considered. Also, the entire tone of this article needs to change to a more neutral point of view, voice, consideration and reference. I would also suggest checking the citations and their validity, as I have already found one bogus claim in this same section about Slow Food USA, which happens to be the only paragraph that does not mention college life. In a below paragraph of this talk page, I actually explain why that paragraph about a Slow Food event in 2008 is unsubstantiated and should be either altered or altogether deleted.Ca.papavero (talk) 08:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported Claim about Slow Food USA/Size of Gathering, SF 2008

In the section about Slow Food USA it currently makes the following statement, although seemingly without real substantiation: "In 2008, Slow Food USA hosted its largest gathering to date when 50,000 people attended the inaugural Slow Food Nation in San Francisco. Founded by Alice Waters, it was the largest celebration of American food (other than the annual American holiday of Thanksgiving) in history.[9]" But the article actually says: "At the end of the summer, the gastronomic organization called Slow Food USA will host a little party for more than 50,000 people in San Francisco." In other words, the article was published before the event even occurred and it seemingly estimates the number of people that organizers of the event wanted or expected to show. In fact Alice Waters and Slow Food organizers apparently wanted 50,000 to 60,000 people, but this article does not confirm that amount actually attended. It doesn't say anything about their participation. Anyway, what's more absurd is that this paragraph actually permits a comparison to the mythical American holiday known as Thanksgiving, as if historians really, truly know what happened at the original event, which was many, many years ago. As far as I know, nobody has been able to validly confirm how many people actually attended the first Thanksgiving, as much as I also wonder if we can validly confirm how many people attended this Slow Food event in San Francisco in 2008. No matter how seemingly grand it may have been, it would just be an estimate. What's really the point of comparing the San Francisco event to Thanksgiving, when the article did not do that itself. In fact, it only mentions "Thanksgiving" once, in order to promote some purveyors so-called "heritage" turkeys. (Did anybody actually read this article?). So, it's my hope that this is not just a ploy; because, after all, it seems obvious that the claim is not only bogus, but farfetched. Even beyond that, the naming of Alice Waters in the same sentence, along with a more than grandiose and unsubstantiated statement, seems like utter self-promotion and propaganda at its worst. Even if Slow Food is a good cause, it should be able to stand on its own simple merits, without the kind of pretension that would possibly harm it. So, all said, I would actually suggest deleting this entire paragraph, if not altering it considerably, because it's not only unsubstantiated, but probably has very little relevance in the larger scope and profile of Slow Food USA. If anything, the 2008 event in S.F. was merely a milestone for the organization and should be regarded as such. Ultimately, for anyone to claim the "largest celebration of American food" is a rather superlative statement, anyway. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted about the San Fransisco event. I agree and I've significantly shorted the paragraph. Personally I don't like to deleted sourced information, so I've left a single sentence (which seems more appropriate at the moment).

I think the general 'problem' with the article is not that the USA section is too large, but that the other sections say too little. It's one of the many things on my 'to do' list! Sionk (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It's not so just disproportionate in terms of it's size to other areas of the article, but what makes it bad is that it's all about college-life issues. Now, considering your above said edit, there's only one sentence to the contrary. By the way, I know that Alice Water's has played a significant role in Slow Food SF, but does this need to be mentioned in the same sentence? It's a strange combination of phrases that really doesn't need to be said and comes off as rather "by the way.." and diverting. Water's role should be cited with a reference and probably stated somehow, somewhere else. That citation should be more than just hearsay, too. I'm really tired of reading articles that mention celebrity chefs without real purpose other than promotion. Unless there's a very valid reason, such name-dropping should be reserved for footnotes and articles like "List of chefs (antiquity to the 20th century)." I also think that the group at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink needs to help standardize formats for many of their concerned articlesCa.papavero (talk) 16:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair points too. Feel free to remove Waters' name if you want, the news article doesn't verify whether she organised it. Lie you say, it seems to be 'name dropping'. Interestingly, the paragraph that does mention Waters also says "But most acknowledge that the organization did not translate well to an American audience. As a result, it has never had as much cultural or political impact as its parent group in Europe." That suggests to me that the US section of the article should not be the largest. Sionk (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I really don't care if Alice Waters organized the event or not. I am assuming the event being mentioned is actually "Slow Food Nation." Nonetheless, It's just one of many events that have been scheduled by Slow Foods, as well as that it's already been about four years ago since that time. Although it was a fond memory for some people, I'm sure, I still question if the event was that significant, in retrospect. Like I said, it was probably a milestone of sorts, but I'm still not sure if I believe all the claims, even if I do respect it's purpose. For instance, even Wikipedia's article about Slow Food Nation states that this was "one of the largest food events in U.S. history," but, again, this is hard to prove. I think that It's sufficient to say that it was a major event for Slow Food USA itself, possibly affirming many of its followers in this country. Besides, I am old enough to recall the Farm Aid event of September, 1985, which held a concert before a crowd of 80,000 people, but which was also televised, promoted awareness through music sales, etc. and even raised over $9 million that year, aside from also paving the way towards the "Agricultural Credit Act of 1987 to help save family farms from foreclosure." Indeed, not only that, but Farm Aid still exists as an organization, still advocates for both farmers and "good food," still organizes events, as well as has addressed our foodways longer than has Slow Food USA as a domestic organization. I'm not taking credit away from Slow Food International, but just putting things in perspective, as it concerns the organization in this country, relative to what it is abroad, or even to similar institutions and events worldwide. Indeed, Slow Food International founder, Carlo Petrini has been advocating these issues since at least the late 1970's, supposedly. Anyway, If you read the article(s) closely about Slow Food Nation, it didn't seem to raise money, whereas it actually took corporate sponsorship from companies like Whole Foods, Food Network and others; as well as that it didn't quite get the national momentum as Farm Aid or even lead to major, breakthrough legislation in Congress. Don't get wrong, however, because I do admire the Slow Food International. I just think that many Americans possibly don't grasp the idea, scope and culture of it, etc., as do so many others in Italy and other nations of the world; but, that's no reason that it should't have say in this article. It's just perhaps reflective of the problem here. It's not a question of what all Americans think of Slow Food; but the percentage of Americans that participate or identify with the global organization, as well as how they make a contribution to its greater cause and orientation, agreeing with that or not. Even though some people may think that Americans don't identify with Slow Food as compared to other nations, nevertheless, they probably do make up a large percentage of the organization, whatever their perspective on issues and however they happen to slant the mission and purpose of the organization, as well as its social participation and politics. Indeed, in naming the various member nations, that's what should be identified in this article, if possible.Ca.papavero (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)