Talk:Perpetual stew

RfC: Brooklyn perpetual stew

Should the "Modern revival" section contain a one sentence reference to the perpetual stew that is currently being cooked in Brooklyn, New York, without mentioning Annie Rauwerda or Depths of Wikipedia? See this diff for more information on the stew as well as the discussion above. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Pinging previous participants: @Chive Cream Cheese, Pacamah, Jpgordon, Bedivere, and Horizon206.

• Support The "Modern revival" section is basically examples of modern perpetual stews. The other examples in the section are a couple of restaurants that have made perpetual stews in recent years. The stew being made in Brooklyn has received far more coverage than those stews and a brief mention is not UNDUE. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts I do agree with many of the points made here. However, while it has brought a lot of attention towards the topic, it is no longer going to be perpetual. There is a final meeting planned for the stew on August 6th (https://www.perpetualstew.club/home/about). While I'm not sure if it disqualifies it from being in the perpetual stew article (I'm fairly neutral about the whole situation), I think it is something that should be taken into account. Horizon206 (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

When this perpetual stew finally stops cooking after months, it will still have been a perpetual stew, like the other example of a perpetual stew which stewed for eight months and stopped in 2015.

While ultimately any stew supporting multiple cycles of eating and replenishing while continuously cooking could count, and I'm sure there are arguments that could be made about a stew that served both lunch and dinner while staying on the stove... We're looking at what will be a 58-day period of cooking supporting hundreds of meals for hundreds of people, weeks apart. I don't think it's really very debatable that this was a perpetual stew, even for those who don't find it to be a notable one. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: Reliable sources seldom write about contemporary examples of perpetual stews. With as many as two hundred participants regularly gathering to participate in cooking and eating a perpetual stew which has been cooking for over a month, this appears to be the largest perpetual stew-related event in recorded history. It is certainly relevant to the article topic.

It would be a major disservice to those who come to this article to choose to exclude this event. To do so while while making note of New York City restaurants which have maintained less popular perpetual stews would effectively be paltering, and excluding it would leave readers with an incomplete understanding of the subject matter.

While this club / event may not meet some contributors' personal definitions of notability, it certainly meets the criteria of WP:GNG, Wikipedia's general notability guideline. In fact, It is so notable it could have its own article. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Given the club's coverage in many reliable, independent sources— including New York Magazine, The Washington Post, Insider, and the Vox-owned Eater and Thrillist, it is clear that the criteria for notability is met— arguably for a stand-alone article, and certainly within this article. For reference, many of the other examples are only mentioned in one reliable source.

Some argue against inclusion on the basis this event is too recent (WP:RECENT), and could lose notability if the perpetual stew were to stop cooking today, or if the near future holds unrelated examples of independently-organized perpetual-stew related events with higher attendance. While it is true that the article may one day need updating in keeping with our changing world, it would be inappropriate to exclude the event based on our personal theories of the future. It doesn't matter that the event may soon end, grow, or change. It already warrants inclusion in the current form.

In short: The club is objectively notable and relevant to the topic. It would be unencyclopedic to exclude it.

Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 02:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose mention I have thoroughly explained my position in the thread above. This is only an event of local relevance, regardless of the media coverage. There seem to be some systemic bias (not just in this article but throughout the English Wikipedia). I do not agree with including a mention of the event, and if it were to be included, it should not contain the organizer name as it is of even less relevance in the larger context of perpetual stews. And those complaining about the other minor occurrences of notable perpetual stews, I'd suggest them to go search Google Books, there's plenty of material there waiting to be included and that is more noteworthy than this event that may be relevant to those who participated and/or sympathize with Rauwerda and her social media account "Depths of Wikipedia", but don't let your passions or affections drive your positions here. To me it is clear this is not a relevant event. Bedivere (talk) 06:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  At the end of the protection period, please add the other well-sourced perpetual stew examples that you've found. I'm sure they would be a wonderful addition to the article! Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 06:58, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  You can do it yourself too. Bedivere (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly. If you share the sources you'd like to add to the article, I'd be happy to help. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 05:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

  Why is the event being of only "local relevance" important or relevant to its inclusion in the article? This is a fairly esoteric subject, all examples are going to be minor and of only local relevance? There's no stew olympics (stewlympics?) known across the country.

  So unless you're arguing for the deletion of the page entirely, I don't follow your point. Do you have any evidence of these other stews you claim to have found but seem to be unable to source yourself? Maybe you just have a personal vendetta against Rauwerda as your contribution history seems to show you previously removed her name from the intro of the Depths of Wikipedia page? Curious... 2600:4041:54BD:E800:5DF0:14CF:DA4B:C22D (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  I'm too curious about the particular interests of you and other accounts who have happened to comment here and have very few other contributions. Salsadancer, who commented below, made their very first edit here, for example. Strange, to say the least. Anyway, I have already said there are many mentions of perpetual stews in XIX century books available freely on Google books. There are also sources at Google Scholar. I suggested contributors to improve the article's content by adding such content instead of a non notable "stew party" Bedivere (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support:In the context of this Article it's worthy of a mention.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Support Definitely agree with with Chive Cream Cheese's point re: WP:RECENTISM but there are various reliable sources which provide meaningful stew-based context into Rauwerda's event XxLuckyCxX (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support I can't think of any sane reason why this would not be included and other examples of less notability would. 2600:4041:54BD:E800:5DF0:14CF:DA4B:C22D (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: Good example of a perpetual stew. Deserving of a few sentences. Name of founder should perhaps not be invoked. SalsaDancer2 (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2023 (UTC) — SalsaDancer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Support: Per my other defenses of the inclusion of the sentence, I don't see why having something that is a current event, and as others have said is probably the most notable perpetual stew in recent history, is something that shouldn't be on here. It is a perpetual stew. The other examples that are on the article could themselves be taken as something that is "advertising," so I don't see why this one is a special example of some other type of advertising. Also, given the flood of new news articles on the topic itself, I don't see how that would negate it from being able to be listed. I think it is okay to maybe have it be disconnected from the Depths of Wikipedia account, and maybe listed as the Perpetual Stew club. There are a number of other articles that have also added new information or events that are continuing, and I don't see why this article should be singled out given that it is a current and relevant example of the contents of the article. Pacamah (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Easy support, with a mention of Rauwerda. Outlets covering the Bushwick stew now include WaPo, NY Mag, Yahoo, Today, WNYC, NY Post, The Independent, Thrillist, and Eater. It’s not just New York media, and even if it was, that would in no way be disqualifying given the narrow nature of the topic. Personal disclosure: I have attended it, but IMHO the news coverage speaks for itself regardless. Cpotisch (talk) 07:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Rauwerda does not even have her own article. Any mention of her would be WP:UNDUE and I strongly oppose it. Bedivere (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes but Depths of Wikipedia has its own article, and it’s been mentioned in most news articles covering this. Seems entirely relevant. Cpotisch (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

But the account is not Rauwerda, and Rauwerda has no article, and the eventual mention would be for Rauwerda not Depths Bedivere (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: In pursuit of WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS and given what appears to be overwhelming (though not unanimous) support for inclusion, here's my proposal for wording. It's quite different from my initial revision, but in the spirit of compromise and consensus, I removed all mention of the initial stew's creator and the initial stew creator's primary work, as well as the specific location.

For a current update:

Since June 7, 2023, a Perpetual Stew Club has been holding intermittent events in Bushwick, Brooklyn to continue the stew for which their eponymous name derives. Hundreds of people regularly gather to perpetually replenish the stew, which is 337 days old as of May 9, 2024.

If the meetings should end (let's assume on August 6th) the article could then be updated to:

Between June and August of 2023, a Perpetual Stew Club formed in Bushwick. Hundreds of participants regularly gathered to continuously replenish the stew. The stew finished cooking on August 6, 2023 at 60 days old.

Of course, I welcome any and all feedback on how this writing could be improved, or you're welcome to help find consensus by editing it. I hope it is sufficiently non-promotional.

And Bedivere, I've asked this before, but I would still love it if you could directly state or outline what criteria would need to be met for it to fit your 'personal' definition of relevancy or notability? Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Chive Cream Cheese The RfC has been running for 5 days, very few people have participated, and people are still commenting. This isn't in SNOW territory and we should let the RfC run its course before declaring consensus (and, given that the prior discussion was quite contentious, I will request a neutral closer at CR when the time comes. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine by me. I didn't mean to declare that consensus has already been reached. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I can live with such a mention if consensus (excluding particular purpose "votes") determines its inclusion. Bedivere (talk) 05:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also Salsadancer and the IP have been blocked apparently for sockpuppeeting. These should be struck Bedivere (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I recommend starting a sub-thread of this discussion to work-shop potential language. You could use a third-level header underneath the RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

That looks perfect. I think we have consensus. SalsaDancer2 (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) — SalsaDancer2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment The Brooklyn stew has now been covered in The Independent – although the author is based in New York, this outlet is beyond local media. I also don't see anything inherently wrong with a brief mention of Rauwerda by name as the club's founder (similar attribution is given in many other cases), so long as there is no WP:UNDUE weight or digression into Depths of Wikipedia. ^Complex/_Rational 00:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  Moving to support brief mention, with name. In addition to the numerous sources linked in this discussion, there are plenty of examples of people who are relevant in the context of an idea or event, and who are accordingly named in those articles, but who do not have articles of their own. I don't see how this is any different than, for instance, explicitly attributing a scientific finding to an author who doesn't have their own article, or giving a purportedly non-notable film critic credit for their review.

  I also agree that the history section ought to be expanded to provide a broader perspective, so as not to place undue emphasis on modern examples.

  In the interest of transparency, I disclose that I have met Rauwerda on one occasion unrelated to perpetual stew (and have not tasted the stew myself). ^Complex/_Rational 15:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion Let's see, we've got mentions under "modern revival" of an eight months example, a 49 year example, a 78 year example and...a 43 day old example. Not really very perpetual, yet. It's just noise on the internet right now, with some obvious fanboy enthusiasm. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  How long do you keep your stews cooking for, jpgordon?

  Respectfully, I'm not sure how you could reasonably classify a stew that has been cooking for well over a month "not really very perpetual". I would be right with you if this were a three day affair, at which point the stew would technically and unambiguously meet the criteria but not, to me, feel in the spirit of it.

  More importantly, however... The age of the stew (or even the existence of it!) is not critical to the issue of inclusion within this article. If there were no stew, and this club were merely an association of perpetual stew enthusiasts, who regularly gathered to celebrate the concept, it would be important to mention this hundreds-strong club on the page— just not under the modern revivals section. The organized collective of "fanboy [enthusiasts]" are worthy of recognition on this page because it is sufficiently notable for its "fanboy enthusiasm".

  If this doesn't fit under the modern revivals section due to being too short a perpetual stew, and I strongly believe it does fit, then it should be given its own section or placed somewhere else on the page due to the other merits. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

• Mild support (summoned by bot). This stew seems to have attracted a reasonable level of notoriety, and the mention seems reasonably proportionate and reasonably likely to be of some interest to the reader, as part of a section that is currently just a fairly brief and scattershot list of examples. If more examples emerge, or sources are found that make a more cohesive narrative possible, then at some point some consideration will need to be given to pruning; at that point, this might not make the cut (or perhaps might turn out to fit better in a separate section as suggested above). But for now it seems fine. -- Visviva (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
• Support. This is clearly notable, and has been discussed in numerous WP:Reliable Sources. Honestly seems very clear to me that it should be included. As for arguments about if it actually constitutes a 'perpetual' stew, that's how sources are describing it so we should follow that. I think this discussion has been dragged out by Bedivere's objections which by now have been clearly expressed but don't seem to be supported by consensus. My advice for editors who have been heavily involved in this discussion (from all sides) is to maybe take a step back, recognise that you've made your view clear, and see how the consensus falls. Remember we are not here to Right Great Wrongs Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  More than the apparent notability of this event (which I do not agree with) I am more disturbed by the urge of some users to include Rauwerda's name, even though she has no article of herself and that of Depths of Wikipedia is about the instagram account, not her. As you have already said, I have expressed my objections more than enough times, and my position right now is to let it be. Bedivere (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• Weak support: For the way the article looks right now, including Rauwerda's stew is definitely appropriate. But a better article would lean less heavily on anecdotes and more heavily on broader-scope encyclopedic content about the history and nature of perpetual stews. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  Question: is the cauldron perpetually leeky, or only leeky on a temporary basis? Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

  perpetually leeky, of course! every article a new leek in the cauldron :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  hahaha glad to hear it! Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

• I first visited this page a few days ago and found the wording of this RfC really weird. without mentioning Annie Rauwerda or Depths of Wikipedia. That seemed odd because the only thing I know about the renewed interest in perpetual stew is that it's directly through Annie Rauwerd and Depths of Wikipedia. What sense would it make to go way out of our way to separate them? I figured there must not be all that much sourcing about it and DoW fans must be spamming the page. I didn't look into it much. Today I reopened the page and literally moments later, while I'm looking at the RfC, a story pops up on WNYC's Morning Edition about perpetual stew in Brooklyn, with Annie Rauwerda at the center. I looked for a link to the story, but it doesn't look like it's up yet. I did find another WNYC-related link, though, via Gothamist, which mentions Rauwerda by name eleven times. So what's the story of the awkward "without mentioning" business? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites It was an attempt at compromise; see the closed thread above that led to this RfC. Please feel free to propose an alternative to the RfC framing. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  The purpose of an RfC is usually to solicit outside involvement (and, sure, to formalize the results of a discussion). Saying "check out this wall of text" isn't usually very effective at getting outside involvement. :) Usually a good idea to provide a summary of the perspectives alongside the RfC IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

  @Rhododendrites That's fair. The dispute was that some editors want the stew mentioned here because it's been covered in RSes, and others did not because they feel it's routine news and Wikipedia is not a newspaper. There was almost a compromise to include, but that imploded. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

"Ingredients" Section only has one sentence & Medieval perpetual stew hoax

To take everyone's minds off the Bushwick perpetual stew, I noticed that the "Ingredients" Section near the end of the article contains only one sentence. In my opinion, I think it'd be better if we take that sentence and put it in the bottom of the lead.

On top of this, I saw on the talk page some claims that the whole concept of medieval perpetual stews was fabricated in the 70s. Such accusations (even if only accusations) sound like something that should be mentioned in the actual article itself. I'd like to hear some thoughts on if these things should be implemented. Horizon206 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I would also be fine with moving the ingredients section. I feel that definitely having it in the top section would be much cleaner, since a stew in general can really have anything. Also I guess we could add something about the concept being fabricated? If there's sources then I'd say definitely. Pacamah (talk) 01:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Pacamah and @Horizon206. So I did some digging, and I found this source which contests the historical accuracy of perpetual stew: [1]

Do we think that this merits inclusion in the article? Please advise or just be bold and add it in yourself.

Bonus note: That source raises some questions about the safety of eating perpetual stew, which are reinforced by this source:[2]. This could also be added. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll look into these and possibly add it. When I do, feel free to edit it as this is my first time I edited Wikipedia beyond grammatical fixes and translations. Horizon206 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources for possible intergration

Hi All,

So I've found some sources that could possibly be starting points for improvements to the article.

https://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1020358 - a student magazine calling for a perpetual stew to be established at their university? Not sure if people feel this is worthy of inclusion, but interesting nevertheless.

https://recipes.howstuffworks.com/perpetual-stew.htm - this makes some claims about the practice's history that aren't in the article? I haven't been able to verify, so I'd appreciate the input of others. Tomorrow and tomorrow (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Mentioned as being fake on this radio programme

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001qd8x Richard W.M. Jones (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Update now that Annie Rauwerda has an article

@Chive Cream Cheese, Pacamah, Jpgordon, Bedivere, Horizon206, Tomorrow and tomorrow, Rhododendrites, Jpgordon, Theleekycauldron, Lukewarmbeer, Cpotisch, and Voorts: (apologies if I missed anyone) A lot of the arguments to not include Annie Rauwerda came to her not having an article of her own. She now has an article. I added her name with a link to the relevant area and added photos of the two stews mentioned (before I even saw there had been prior discussion). I was reverted by Bedivere here. I think given the existence of the article, the only path that follows the emphasis from sources and Wikipedia's standard of what is WP:DUE and what should be linked is to include her name and the freely available photos. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I still don't think a 2-month stew is perpetual, so I still don't think the mention should be in the article at all. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 18:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think she should even have an article, but I will not bother nominating the article for deletion. There sure are some infuriating fanboys. I don't need any more toxicity in my life. Bedivere (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Wanting to follow sources and include free-to-use photos is not a sign of being a fanboy. I'd prefer you would WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point, I think she's notable enough, but I've cut back on a lot of, as you would describe, fanboying. Details about her show, how the stew started, what ingredients there were, etc, are definitely not worthy of inclusion. Cpotisch (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I mean, it's described as a "perpetual stew" by sources, not unlike the leek-and-rutabaga concotion that's slowly growing... other things in my fridge :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed on that point: the lifetime of the perpetual stew is not relevant insofar as reliable sources refer to it as one. Given that it has ended and is thus unlikely to receive more coverage, I think the current weight given to the topic in this article is appropriate. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on this edit I made, which also added a couple of photos of the mentioned perpetual stews and added a wikilink to Annie Rauwerda? Cerebral726 (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fine, especially considering the second photo is of two of the mentioned perpetual stews. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 23:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your edit, and I support re-adding it to the article. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that Annie Rauwerda's name should be included, as if she is notable enough for her own Wikipedia article, her name is also probably notable enough to be included in a section of this article as well.

However, this is just my personal opinion, I'm not all that knowledgeable with all the criteria and guidelines of Wikipedia just yet. Furthermore, I wasn't all that involved in the initial discourse to begin with, and I do not intend to join this one any further. Horizon206 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with adding her given that she has her own article. I don't understand why to not link to her article, given that is essentially an extra step someone would have to go through if they were curious about who made the stew club and was responsible for caring about the soup itself.

To respond to some comments about whether the stew itself is perpetual, I think it qualifies as it is a stew that has items continuously added in. Even though it was only two months old, I find it distinctive enough from a master stock as it is not used to flavor other dishes, and the 2-month perpetual stew is a dish in and of itself. I guess it is a bit similar to hot pot in that it is a communal(-ish) soup/stew with different ingredients thrown in, and the combination of the broth and ingredients being the dish itself and therefore similar to a perpetual stew. However, hot pot isn't often stored to be used again, and as far as I can tell the perpetual stew was not used to cook the ingredients before eating immediately after as you would do in hot pot. I guess it could just be called a regular soup or stew, but I'd argue most people wouldn't think of a soup as a community-created meal.

Anyhow, perpetual stew or not, I don't see why not to add a link. It just makes it easier I feel. Pacamah (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I fully support the inclusion as well. Adding the link to Rauwerda's article contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic, thereby enhancing the overall value of the article. Linking directly to her page simplifies access to relevant information, which improves the reader experience. This approach aligns closely with Wikipedia's standards for including notable and verifiable content. Chive Cream Cheese (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)