Talk:Slow movement (culture)

Untitled

After reviewing the web site, "Slow Home," linked to in the "External Links" section, it appears that it has little to do with the genuine Slow Movement. It looks to me as if that site has merely appropriated the moniker from the Slow Food movement - and the Slow Movement in general - in order to lend itself a little cachet. I propose that the link to Slow Home be removed, as it is just another consumer-oriented web site and company, the very antithesis of the Slow Movement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.21 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 26 June 2007

Slow home removed as per above request.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Greycar (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 October 2007

Slow Retail also seems to have little or nothing to do with the actual movement, seemingly added simply for a quick link. Thoughts? Opinions? TheGiftedOne 06:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If it doesn't fit then I suggest you take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greycar (talk • contribs) 03:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please give at least some sort of time frame for this movement? Dc2011 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

slow money

Can someone please add slow money to this?

Thanks

http://www.slowmoneyalliance.org/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kerry-trueman/slow-money-cultivating-a_b_219992.html

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101794001 Rivermusic (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Slow sex

User:Mindmatrix recently deleted an edit by an IP user which looks like vandalism, but actually isn't. It said:

"Slow Sex is a branch of the Slow Movement. It's an alternative to the fast-food sex that pervades our culture. Instead of using sex as an escape, we encourage people to feel into each nook and cranny of their sex. We find that by getting back to the basics of connecting to your body, being honest about your experience, and communicating with your partner, we can have sex that is more intimate and sensational."

I think that if this were written and referenced a bit better, it would be fine. Carl Honoré's book "In Praise of Slow" has a chapter on this. -- Rixs (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Could well be worth adding. There is a link to Slow Sex Movement, which is actually a redirect to a business called OneTaste.Jonpatterns (talk) 15:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Slow travel

Possibly related -- psychogeography. Might be of interest for Related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.22.97 (talk) 11:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Slow Travel in the US

This is the subject of the final paragraph and claims that the concept has renewed interest in driving on specific roads and types of roads. It already has a disputed tag. There are no sources and it ignores the fact that for years people have been motivated to drive on specific roads for a range of other reasons. It's a little desperate to suggest that an interest in Slow Travel has renewed interest in the Lincoln Highway or US Route 66, when the interest has been chiefly sparked by such things as the historic/folk myth of those roads. As the disputed tagger noted, "This is ridiculous nonsense; Route 66 has had an enormous enthusiast community dating back to year of its official replacement with the Interstate highway system, obviously pre-dating this "slow movement" stuff, and certainly had nothing to do with "slow travel".

So, in the absence of sources, despite my own attempts to locate one to support the paragraph, I've deleted it. It's quite possible to describe Slow Travel in the US with an entirely different set of examples, such as RVing, etc, but that's for another time and/or another person. Twistlethrop (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also looking for sources and others interested in slow travel.

My main interest is in what I call medium speed rail. I think about 60mph or about 100km/h is fast enough for anybody, and it has great benefits in safety and conviviality. And in Australia we have lots of level crossings, and these are just not compatible with high speed rail. Bring back the Orient Express, the British "slow train" and the good old Aussie "mixed".

When I raised this opinion on Quora one of my fellow contributors suggested I see a psychiatrist. So I'm looking for like minds. But if I find any it will possibly be a subtopic for this article, which is why I feel OK about raising it here.

We should of course include the fact that there have been previous quite successful slow trains in the past, but these have been largely abandoned following for example the Beeching cuts. Andrewa (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Any order to the "Slow [fill-in-the-blanks]"?

The various types of offshoots of the Slow movement don't appear to be in any particular order, alphabetical, chronological, or topical. Engelhardt (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can tell, should there be? Theoretick (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed: alphabetized. Regards, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Article name

I wonder if Slow (movement) or Slow (social movement) might be a better (more accurate) name for this article. Thoughts? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

What's going on here?

I've just looked in on the Slow architecture page and found a tag saying “this article is in the process of being merged... (not “it has been suggested...” but that it is all done and dusted)” and that “the relevant discussion is on the article's talk page (nope!) or at the target article talk page (not here, either)”.
Can I suggest that if a merger of these pages is contemplated, that it be proposed, explained and discussed (per the relevant guidelines) so that some semblance of a consensus be determined. Hmm? Moonraker12 (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Turns out the discussion (such as it is) was tucked away on the talk page of Slow movement (which is a redirect to here). I've copied it to here (below) so the discussion can continue. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved that discussion to Talk:Slow Movement/Merge request, a subpage of this page and transluded it above. We shouldn't really be having discussion forks about a topic at a talk page of a redirect to the topic. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The merge discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No concensus over a period of 2 years; individual merge proposals should be individually discussed. Klbrain (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

---

(This was on the talk page of Slow movement (which is a redirect to here). I've copied it to here so the discussion can continue. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2015 (UTC))

I just see that there are many articles which contain the word slow in addition to something which already exists:

• Slow movement (culture) is the main one (destination),
• Slow design is another one,
• Slow education is another one,
• Slow gardening is another one,
• Slow parenting is another one,
• Slow photography is another one,
• Slow programming is another one,
• Slow reading is another one,

Claimed unrelated:

• Slow television

Claimed to be valid as stand alone articles (the merge tag will be removed after the poll):

• Cittaslow
• Slow food

Redirected now:

• Slow architecture is another one,
• Slow cinema is another one,
• Slow Science is another one,

I'll suggest to make a move forward and integrate all those small articles into Slow Movement because the articles have no real substance and it looks like they where created to attract readers to the Slow Food movement. Please vote about this proposal below. I have nothing against the Slow Movement. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I added the {{merging|Slow movement|date=August 2015}} to the above articles to ask for comments on this suggested change.

Agree - no additional value to keep these articles separated, some are tagged for notability, refrences. Make your own objective research. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A point of order: As nominator, adding a vote for a merge is not good form. (And for some other process objections, see above. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2015 (UTC)}

Oppose for Slow television. That article is already lengthy enough to stand on its own and has 29 references. It documents a media phenomenon appearing for several years, unrelated to "Slow food". Bistropha (talk) 19:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bistropha, thanks for your valuable feedback, could you please change your vote, I removed your article to the unrelated list (these pages will not be included for the merge)! --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Huggi. I have no objection to the proposed merger (leaving out "Slow television"), but suggest a careful review of the list in case some of the other topics may deserve distinct articles (perhaps Cittaslow). Bistropha (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the merger template from this article, it is very clearly unrelated to the Slow meovement. Let's not confuse the issue. Sionk (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would oppose this merger, as no justification has been given other than that all the article titles have the word “Slow” in them.

The reasons for a merger would be Duplication, Overlap, Unlikely to be expanded, or Too much context needed: none of those (IMO) apply to any of the articles on this list.

OTOH the reasons against a merger are if the articles are on separate topics (I'd say “yes”) and/or are capable of expansion (again, “yes”) or if the result here would be too long or 'clunky'. This article is already 24 Kb long; If the twelve articles listed are an average of 3Kb each; (some, at least, are longer than that) that would make the resulting article here 60Kb long, which is getting on for being too big. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: A better idea would be to keep this as a concept dab (with maybe a paragraph on each) and a main article link to individual articles on all of them. Moonraker12 (talk) 19:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

while you are still discussing (next time I will just go ahead after a week), I moved the two articles, the Slow (movement) is just not important enough to have +10 articles on Wikipedia, there is no limit in size per article (like when you print it out). As a Wikipedia reader, I prefer having the content within one article instead of multiple ones, which are after years not even connected with each other.

• Slow architecture is another one,
• Slow cinema is another one,

My time to spend on such discussions is now over. You can help make the situation better or worse, but don't try to start the discussion after 3 months, it just shows a lot about your editing habits :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you are disposed to insult my editing habits, at least I understand the notions of collaborative working and building consensus; if your actions here are anything to go by, and if “your time to spend on discussion is over”, maybe you don't.

As for making the situation better or worse, I've already explained why your proposal makes things worse, (here) and offered a suggestion to make this stuff better (here); if you don't agree, maybe it's time we got another opinion. I've requested one, here. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Third Opinion Huggi was correct a few weeks ago in going ahead with the merger as there was, at the time, consensus for the merge since no one had opposed. However consensus can change, and the the fact that Moonraker12 reverted the attempted merge shows that there is not consensus now. Because there is no consensus now we need to discuss the changes more and come to a sufficient compromise. Wugapodes (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for slow cinema, probably the rest. Bulk discussions like this are not appropriate, you need to consider each on its own merits. Slow cinema has been discussed in detail in many reliable sources, only some of which are cited in the article. For example, Edinburgh University Press are publishing a book on the topic. This is a notable standalone topic. If you want to have summaries of the individual articles in a main article with main links then that'd be fine, but a merge will not better serve readers or navigation. Fences&Windows 21:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• Abstain I'm tired about such mickey-mouse discussions on WP. Just do your own homework before you join a discussion, leaving you guys alone now as there are more important things to do in real life :) --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Removed my content and tagged all articles with the notability tag, I totally forgot that I did not do this from the beginning. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

And I've restored them, per WP:TALK. If you wish to withdraw something you should strike it through (like this), not simply delete it, as it makes a mockery of everyone else's comments. Or was that the intention? Moonraker12 (talk) 01:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The merge nomination seems to have been withdrawn, but the articles are still tagged for merging and many for notability:

• Slow architecture
• Slow cinema
• Slow design
• Slow education
• Slow gardening
• Slow parenting
• Slow photography
• Slow programming
• Slow reading
• Slow Science
• Slow television
• Cittaslow
• Slow Food

They should not have have had the "merging" template added, but rather the "merge" tag; the former is when a merge is ongoing, the latter for when it is proposed. Fences&Windows 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the notability tags on these articles; they all had at least half-a-dozen links or references (one had nearly thirty!) so there was no question of notability, and the tagging was frivolous to borderline disruptive. I've also fixed the merge tags, using the "merge to" format (to direct the discussion here); if the proposal has been withdrawn then we can always close here and delete them. I've also archived the previous discussion on the redirect page. Moonraker12 (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly support merging all the forked topics, and stop overcapitalizing them, per MOS:ISMCAPS. Slow food pre-dates the generalized "slow movement", so should remain separate, at least in theory. Slow cinema and some other arts topics (slow television, others?) may be independent of the slow movement and unrelated (though later become embraced by slow movement proponents). All that are just variant, narrower jargon should be merged without further ado. We do not need a separate "slow walking" and "slow dishwashing" and "slow cat-petting" and "slow note-taking" article for every single thing that slow-movement people do in their lives. Almost all of these are essentially unexpandable stubs on micro-topics that are not independently notable. The vast majority of their sourcing is directly in relation to them as integral aspects of the slow movement, so these sources fail to establish them as notable as independent topics. Of course an education journal or an design column will focus on the slow education or slow design aspects of the slow movement; that doesn't make them independent entities from the movement, any more than Canadian horror films are special genre unto their own because Canadian sources write about them as Canadian. Cittaslow and Slow Money could conceivably remain separate (and capitalized) as they are about specific organizations, but are they actually notable independently of the movement? If slow money were to become an article on the concept not the nonprofit, it too should be merged. So would Cittaslow if it became generalized to a slow cities article. The very rationale that they'd be merged this way strongly suggests they should not exist as stand-alone articles at all, but instead be merged now into sections named "Slow money" and "Slow cities", that mention but do not promotionally dwell up those specific organizations. Note in this regard that slow cities already redirects to Cittaslow. PS: A basic point of procedure: When others have supported a merge (or RfC or whatever), the nom can no longer withdraw it; the discussion remains open for consensus resolution.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose any merging, because each of these subjects has their own qualities within their respective fields; such that Slow cinema is an established style of filmmaking, just like Cinéma vérité is one. Also, if all these articles were merged into the destination article, the merge would make the article very large, and would then inevitably run the risk of diluting the slow in each of these fields, as othe editors would try to make the article more brief by way of excising information that would otherwise stand well on its own in an individual article.-Mardus /talk 21:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strongest Support SMcCandlish made really good points and I support his views fully but also want to add some explicit source analysis to show just how far a lot of these topics are from the GNG. Looking at the sourcing and just some quick google searches on the various topics, I cannot support a merge more strongly than I do right now. The articles are fractured and do not seem to be independently notable from the movement. The sources are almost always non-independent or not significant, and what is left is not multiple sources. For example:

• The first on the list, slow architecture cites 7 sources. Two of them (5 and 6) are WP:ROUTINE and thus not significant. Citation 2 is from "Slowarchitecture.ie" which doesn't sound independent or reliable (and is a dead link). Citation 3 is from a blog post and doesn't seem to be reliable per WP:SELFPUB. Citation 4 (archive of citation 4 is here) isn't about slow architecture but a specific architect; slow architecture is mentioned once and thus fails "significant coverage". That leaves one valid source (and a quick google doesn't produce many reliable or independent sources).
• Looking at another on the list, Slow parenting, it cites 9 sources, but none seem to be independent of the movement, rather they are primary sources written by advocates of the movement (Hodgkinson and Honoré, who make up 5 of the 9 sources, both are described as advocates of the Slow movement and so I'm not willing to call them "independent" of the subject). That leaves 4, but those are offline so I can't check them at the moment (though the other sources don't give me hope that these four are valid, particularly since none of them mention slow in the title or in their blurbs, and seem to be used to source claims not related to the slow movement itself but things people in "slow parenting" believe.)
• Moving down, Slow photography only cites things by one person.
• Slow programming has been tagged as possibly not meeting the GNG for a year, and the sources it cites are not independent or notable.
• Slow Science is almost as bad. There are maybe two good sources, letters in Nature and The Scientist but I take issue with those as they aren't written by someone independent of the movement. It doesn't show that "slow science" is notable enough for someone else outside the movement to go out and write about it.

I agree with SMcCandlish that, Slow cinema, Cittaslow, and Slow Food at a glance probably pass the GNG.

I'd say that maybe there's a chance or argument to be made for the following: Slow design (one NYT article), Slow education (need to go more in depth on sources but seem, on their face, okay), Slow gardening (NYT article and HGTV article), Slow reading (I need to look more carefully at the sources, but they look a little iffy; I doubt Nietsche was talking about the slow movement), slow television (seem largely in other languages).

The rest, in my opinion, don't come close to passing muster. If I have the time, I may look through the iffy ones I just mentioned, but these largely seem non-independent from the "slow movement". One thing that should also be kept in mind when thinking about the ones like slow education and slow gardening is what SMcCandlish said: ""Of course an education journal or an design column will focus on the slow education or slow design aspects of the slow movement; that doesn't make them independent entities from the movement, any more than Canadian horror films are special genre unto their own because Canadian sources write about them as Canadian."[emphasis original] Because I think, just because HGTV covered slow gardening, we really need to think critically about whether that coverage indicates it as notably separate from the slow movement or is just focusing on a part it cares about. Wugapodes (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

And about the size if we merged, since lots of people are opposing based on that: firstly, what's already in the article is probably already enough; by merge I mean just redirect those articles here. Secondly, the recommended split size is measured by "readable prose" not including markup (see WP:LENGTH). The page only has 14kb of readable prose right now per dykcheck. Even if all 5 pages I suggested had a readable prose size of 10kb (which is an insane exaggeration, the longest of the lot, slow parenting is 7k, and the rest average out at about 2k) and we saved every single bit of information in them (which is unreasonable and unlikely), we still wouldn't reach 60kb of readable prose on this page. Even under those most favorable circumstances, the "it would be too long" argument doesn't hold up. Wugapodes (talk) 07:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose all and instead treat each 'Slow' article on its merits. The so-called Slow movement began with Slow food (sustainability, locally grown resources) sveral decades ago and most of the other "Slow" initiatives do not seem to bear a direct, organisational relationship to this (or one another). The 'Slow' epithet has certainly gained popularity in a variety of fields as a reaction against the modern pace of life. If there are one or two Slow initiatives that are unsourced or questionable (Slow movement (music) is an obvious one) they should be treated individually. This is now so confusing I doubt it can be resolved with one big merger discussion. Sionk (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose any merge of Slow Food, the significant and extremely notable organisation that started the whole thing. As several people have said above, the others should be considered on their individual merits, not lumped together. There's no consensus for any merge here, time this was closed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

• This proposal is too broad - It's unlikely that a consensus can be reached that is about so many diverse pages. For instance Slow reading is only partially about the Slow Movement, and has other reading-speed related information. Also, even if duplication was removed, merging all of these pages would make an article that was too long. Individual discussions about each article to be merged would stand a better chance of achieving some result.—Anne Delong (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support for Slow science. I haven't read others, and as Anne mentioned, this should be relisted/recalculated for each individual articles. Mass nominations are a too often a waste of time, too may exceptions spoil the consensus. Ping User:Moonraker12, User:Hugg (one of you is the creator of this)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Piotrus: No, this isn't my proposal; I only put it here because the original poster had it in the wrong place. I thought he had withdrawn it in November 2015, but it seems to have carried on for a while after that.

There has been little movement here since this time last year, and (as has been pointed out) the proposal is too unwieldy to produce any kind of consensus: So can I suggest it be closed, and if anyone has the enthusiasm for any of these merges that they be re-posted in a more practical form? Moonraker12 (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

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.

Slow television

Noting that the proposed merge tag was removed from slow television by this edit. Indeed the brief discussion of it in this article fails WP:summary style in that it does not summarize the so-called "main article" on the topic, and neither does the main article seem to cover the same ground as the summary. The reader is left wondering if these might be two somewhat related, yet different concepts. Also noting that this article uses the primary term "slow media", stating that is "more specifically" slow television – is that slow social media? Yet slow media is a red-link. Indeed the concept, as described at the "main article", seems like a form of extreme reality television, and so is far-removed from the original idea of Slow Food. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the specifics of Slow television should be discussed on that Talk page. I agree it needs improving and is currently heavily weighted towards Norwegian TV. Sionk (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree that slow television is something different to slow media; the point of slow media seems to be about rediscovering/focusing on quality, in-depth reporting (like Diverse Reports, or Unreported World, maybe) rather than news for entertainment, while the point of slow television would seem to be providing the relaxation found in a canal trip, or the absorption of watching a craftsman at work.

But I don't think it is simply a form of Reality TV (which is more like voyeurism; but then, other television in real time (like sports coverage) or depicting the real-world (like documentaries) don't qualify as Reality TV either. I suspect the problem is that Reality TV isn't actually about reality...) Moonraker12 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Page move

I've also reverted the unexplained page move on 30 August; there was no obvious reason for this, as the previous title was stable, and well-supported by usage; a Gsearch for “Slow Movement” (here) throws up more than half a million results, while there is little evidence of a movement simply called “Slow” (see search, here).
If there is any good reason for this title change, I suggest it be presented as a Request Move, to see if anyone else agrees that it's a good idea. Moonraker12 (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2015

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: Moved to Slow movement (culture). There is a consensus that the title should be de-capitalized, per naming conventions (WP:LOWERCASE), but the main objection is that this article is not the primary topic. Most users indicated flexibility as to what should be used to disambiguate the title ("culture", "sociology", "social issues", etc.), so I decided to use "culture" since it is more commonly used in everyday contexts as compared to "sociology". I will also create a disambiguation page. Biblioworm 23:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Slow Movement → Slow movement – per Category:Slow movement and most social movements in Category:Social movements. This is not a proper name, unless it's about a formal organization with the name "Slow Movement" (in which we would probably have an external link to the official website of "Slow Movement". – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

See also: Talk:Slow Science § Requested move 28 November 2015

• Support titles should be in sentence case unless they are proper nouns. There is no evidence this is a proper noun thus it should be in sentence case. Wugapodes (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I probably don't support such a move at present; the Gsearch I gave (above) threw up about half-a-million results, and a good number of them used full capitalization for the subject. So I think the present title format does have evidence to support it. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

PS: Also, why has the talkpage to the target page (currently a redirect) been moved? Surely the time to do that would be when a page move has been agreed. As it is it makes the links here to that discussion meaningless. Moonraker12 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I moved that discussion to Talk:Slow Movement/Merge request and transluded it above. We shouldn't really be having discussion forks about a topic at a talk page of a redirect to the topic. That redirect shouldn't be edited except for discussions directly related to the redirect, such as tagging for {{Rfd}} (in which case the discussion is actually at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion). Readers can follow the red links to the page I moved it to (until that talk page is re-created). Wbm1058 (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose slow movement should be a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT to Slow movement (music), which is the main meaning in Google Books of "slow movement". This cultural movement, if it is decapitalized should go to Slow movement (culture) or something. It is nowhere near majority topic. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi - otherwise would be confusing.--Smerus (talk) 08:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  Good point. I just found one article that needed to be fixed for this (diff). Certainly music is the primary topic on long-term significance. I'm still open on which is primary based on common current usage. Pages that link to "Slow movement" I'm also thinking that capitalization is insufficient disambiguation. M meaning "social movement" and m meaning "music" doesn't seem adequate to me. Especially given that topics such as slow cinema, slow gardening, slow programming, etc. all use lower case. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment for closer: Note that the above opposes support decapitalization; they just additionally propose disambiguation.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support the move suggestion per naming convention, and per the rationale given above by proposer (not a proper name). GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • considering Slow movement (music), this should move to Slow movement (social issues) or something -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Relisting comment. More input on whether this subject is the primary topic and, if it's not, how it should be disambiguated, would be useful. Jenks24 (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "slow movement" should redirect to velocity as this is the most logical topic, moving slowly, and not this particular social movement. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per MOS:ISMCAPS, and optionally disambiguate but still de-capitalize: I have no prejudice against something like Slow movement (sociology) or whatever. This is not an organization, not a proper name. Support decapitalization also per WP:CONSISTENCY with Slow architecture, Slow cinema, Slow design, Slow education, Slow gardening, Slow living, Slow marketing, Slow parenting, Slow photography, Slow programming, Slow reading, Slow television. Also, the article is full of a lot of PoV and OR; e.g. "Slow Cinema is a widespread movement in film ..." is WP:PEACOCK wording, and proceeds into an unsupportable assertion that a cinematography style (which also should not be capitalized, per our treatment of genres) that pre-dates this "movement" has anything to do with the movement simply because they're both called "slow". Is my slow cooker an artifact of the "slow movement"? Is this slow traffic jam that I'm stuck in? Of course not. Much of this article is not encyclopedic, but is basically promotional of one view of what this "slow movement" is, and is about. The segment on "slow travel" falsely claims that interest in U.S. Route 66 is related to a "slow travel" movement.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
  PS: Slow Food and Slow Science need to move next, and are listed for RM at Talk:Slow Science#Requested move 28 November 2015; all the other "slow foo" articles are already lower case.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:10, 28 November 2015 (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.

Fresh Structure

All- I propose the following as an idea to a better structure of the subheadings. I admit it's not perfect, but I believe it to be in the right direction.

Current+	Proposed
Ageism	1.Lifestyle 1.1 Ageism 1.2 Counseling 1.3 Living 1.4 Parenting 1.5 Religon
Cinema	2.Culture 2.1 Cinema 2.2 Fashion 2.3 Food 2.4 Goods 2.5 Media 2.6 Photography 2.7 Travel
Counseling	3.Living** 3.1 Cittislow 3.2Medicine 3.3Money 3.3.1Scholarship 3.4Technology 3.5Time poverty
Education	See also Education Gardening Marketing Slow sex Science
Fashion
Food
Gardening
Goods
Living
Marketing
Media
Medicine
Money
Parenting
Photography
Religon
Scholarship
Sex
Science
Technology
Travel
Time Poverty

+omitted Slow

• • I know there's two "living." but I couldn't think of a broader name for this group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron24bon (talk • contribs) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow Fashion

Proposed addition to Slow Fashion:

    Functional and fashion novelty drives consumers to replace their items faster causing an increase of imported goods into the U.S alone. It is reported by the Economic Policy Institute that in 2007, the U.S has imported six billion dollars' worth in fashion articles. Popular brands, such as Patagonia, make products that are made to endure the test of time and be environmentally conscious. (Sharon Bloyd-Peterson) 

Bloyd-Peshkin, Sharon. “Built to Trash.” In These Times, 21 Oct. 2009, http://inthesetimes.com/article/5023/built_to_trash. Ian Prentice (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow Food

Proposed addition to Slow Food:

    Tim Cooper, author of Longer Lasting Solutions, insists on “slow consumption.” He goes on to say, “The issue to address is what kind of economy is going to be sustainable in its wider sense- eco- nomically, environmentally and socially.” Saul Griffith introduces “heirloom design” during a February Greener Gadgets conference in 2009. He notes a lasting design, mend ability, and the option of being modernized to advocate slow consumption. Through legislation, alternative options, and consumer pressure can further manufactures into designing items in a more heirloom fashion.

Bloyd-Peshkin, Sharon. “Built to Trash.” In These Times, 21 Oct. 2009, http://inthesetimes.com/article/5023/built_to_trash.

and

    Although the initial purpose of the movement is to discover a way to enjoy food in a more traditional and relaxed manner, another side component of the slow food movement is its ability to inspire the growth of a social movement through the use of food. Though the movement itself may not seem as though it’s on an obvious path to politicization, the mobilizing effect can’t be ignored. As one-time vice president of Slow Food International, Alice Water’s states, “Is having a refined palate or training it a political act? I hope so; politics is not just voting. Politics in Greek sense was about every interaction that you had with every other person on the planet and learning to eat and appreciating the person who grew your food is [central to that]. (AW, personal interview, Dec 2007) (Allison Hayes-Conroy and Deborah G Martin)

Hayes-Conroy, Allison, and Deborah G. Martin. “Mobilizing Bodies: Visceral Identification in the Slow Food Movement.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, vol. 35, no. 2, Apr. 2010, pp. 269–281. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00374. x. http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=29eba37d-ac67-41b3-b1d9-94be779cf7b6%40pdc-v-sessmgr02 Ian Prentice (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow Education

Proposed addition to Slow Education:

    As an alternative approach to our modern faster styles of reading, such as speed reading, the concept of slow reading has been reintroduced as an educational branch of the slow movement. For instance, the ancient Greek slow reading practice known as Lectio, which is now known in our modern times as lectio divina, has become a way of reading that encourages more in-depth analysis and a greater understanding of the text being read. Though this method is originally of a christian monastic origin, its technique can be used in other areas of education besides the study of theology. 

Badley, K.Jo-Ann, and Ken Badley. “Slow Reading: Reading along Lectio Lines.” Journal of Education & Christian Belief, vol. 15, no. 1, Spring 2011, pp. 29–42. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/205699711101500104.http://web.a.ebscohost.com.mctproxy.mnpals.net/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=5&sid=b5e1b376-9109-4fe6-9c22-9bda173da611%40sessionmgr4008 Ian Prentice (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Cittaslow

Proposed addition to Cittaslow:

    Cittaslow cities use the concept of glocalization to prevent the impending globalization of their cities. “The case of the Spanish Cittaslow towns offers a particular example of how towns can actively exploit the interpenetration of the global and the local. In these towns, a local–global relationship has emerged in ways that enable controlled development and the maintenance of local uniqueness.” (Servon, Pink, 2015) 

Servon, Lisa J., and Sarah Pink. “Cittaslow: Going Glocal in Spain.” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 37, no. 3, Aug. 2015, pp. 327–340. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/juaf.12169. Ian Prentice (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Slow Travel

Proposed addition to Slow Travel:

    The future of Slow Travel is aiming toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions by reducing car and air travel because the rate we are using planes and cars is not sustainable for our atmosphere. To achieve [the] goal of [reduced] plane and car use for travel, the Slow Travel Movement [aims] to make the journey as exciting as the destination when traveling. Advocates believe that the combination of environmental awareness and cost efficient traveling will move people towards Slow Travel. (Dickinson, Lumsdon, 2010)

Dickinson, Janet, and Les Lumsdon. Slow Travel and Tourism, Routledge, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.mctproxy.mnpals.net/lib/mspcc/detail.action?docID=585469.

Ian Prentice (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Change main image request

The article states that the movement "began with Carlo Petrini's protest". The main image shown, however, is of Carl Honoré.

I suggest that an image of the former would be a better fit for the article. Carl Honoré appears to have a number of articles, for himself and his books, which mostly have a marketing / promotional style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.2.35 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I propose merging Slow design into this article. That article is a badly written essay with few sources, but a couple of sentences might be appropriate here. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

• Y- other article converted to redirect for want of anything of value there. Reyk _YO! 12:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Carl Honore's book

Does this book really deserve such a prominent place in the lede?

Currently it has a puffy description ("is to the slow movement what Das Kapital is to communism"), with a broken link as a citation. I couldn't find any evidence that it's really such an important book.

Perhaps we should make it less prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.149.161 (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: made the change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.137.149.161 (talk) 12:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tarkovsky....

Interesting to see the noted Russian film director Andrei Tarkovsky included in here... but he was making films quite a long while before this movement even got started. The text seems to suggest that he was in some way inspired by it though... Richard Move (talk) 14:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)