Talk:Food and Agriculture Organization

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wombatsaregreat. Peer reviewers: Jeslyndv, Taylor.daws.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

List of publications
Seems hard to believe, but maybe I'm missing something - where's the list of FAO's publications? Seems like at least some of their bigger reports should get a mention. http://www.fao.org/publications/en/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.44.189.15 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Page move
It was requested (and voted against) for Food and Agriculture Organization to be moved to FAO - this is the discussion:

The organization is probably better known by its acronym. Most wikilinks point to FAO, which is a redirect. I propose moving the article there. Jonathunder 00:35, 2005 Mar 1 (UTC)
 * Oppose as a colossal waste of time. Acronyms redirect to the full name of the organization.  After the RM, SS → Schutzstaffel, currently however... CIA → Central Intelligence Agency, WTO → World Trade Organization, USOC → United States Olympic Committee, EU to European Union et cetera ad infinitum.  As the FAO is a UN organization, it should be noted that articles regarding United Nations organizations are usually in full name with acronyms established as redirects: UN → United Nations, UNESCO → United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, UNICEF → United Nations Children's Fund, WHO → World Health Organization, etc.  It would probably be a disambiguation mess if every organization were listed at their acronyms.  Why then would it be logical&mdash;in the face of every other alphabet soup organization redirecting to the corresponding full name&mdash;to make the FAO any different? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. If you deign to think it important enough to warrant wasting our time with such nonsense, I would advise that your time would be better spent finding all the wikilinks that point to FAO and change them appropriately. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neutralitytalk 01:39, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It seems to be a general and good policy that abbreviations are not the titles of articles, particularly when I'm always suprised by what different things three letters can mean to different people with different backgrounds. Gareth Hughes 17:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. -- Necrothesp 18:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not moved. violet/riga (t) 23:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

coins
I have seen a few of these FAO coins from different countries. What is their purpose?? --Astrokey 44 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a page with some quickie info on the coins, . We really should mention them in the article. It's sort of a quirky sideline, but it has taken off...Lisamh 01:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

merge applications into Food and Agriculture Organization article
I suggest we merge World Agricultural Trade Matrix, World Agricultural Trade Flow, and FAOSTAT into the Food and Agriculture Organization article. There's really not much to say about them individually for an encyclopedia entry. (Although the FAO statistics office and its products are fabulous resources for users of that sort of data.) This would give us one nice strong article, rather than several sparse interlinked ones. Lisamh 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I would agree with a compromise as follows: merge World Agricultural Trade Matrix and World Agricultural Trade Flow into FAOSTAT, but keep Food and Agriculture Organization as a seperate article. Why?  because WATM and WATF are services under the FAO Stats Division, but do not justify more than a passing mention in the FAO article.  Sure, the FAO article needs expanding, and I might give it a try (I used to work for them), but it should be expanded by providing a comprehensive summary of the work of all Divisions rather than a lot of attention to FAOSTAT. APB-CMX 11:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The above suggestion has been carried out. There are now two articles: 1. Food and Agriculture Organization which consists of a general description of the organisation, greatly expanded in recent weeks, and 2. FAOSTAT, that includes info about FAOSTAT, WATM and WATF. What was missing until today was a link between the FAO and FAOSTAT articles. This has now been added and - as a result - I have removed the merge tag from the article. APB-CMX 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

POV Section
There are large chunks of unreferenced text in this article. It sounds like it came straight out of the FAO Press Room. On 13th Nov, the article was tagged in three places with citation needed. On 14th Nov, the tags were removed and the unreferenced material was put under the heading What FAO says about itself. It is my opinion that this latest edit does NOT solve the problem of making unreferenced claims about the value of the organisation's work. If this is really what FAO says about itself, then the sources should be mentioned. It can't be too difficult - surely - to create some links to relevant documents kept on the FAO website? Until sources are cited (as they are in the Criticism section) the POV tag should be used for the Programmes and Achievements section. APB-CMX 15:55, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article as a whole is FAO's point of view about itself. Yes, each part should be specifically referenced and should be balanced with non-FAO viewpoints. A seperate section with non-FAO POV is a beginning, but much more should be added and then merged with FAO's point of view to create balanced article. But that's a lot of work and we'll probably only get there slowly. WAS 4.250 22:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

FAO report on Agricultural Biotechnology. It seems that the FAO Press Room is not content with writing most of the article, they also want to edit the section of 'criticism'. I would like to defend the reversion WAS 4.250 and note that the subsequent 're-insertion' by User:ANFO left the section in a mess, with duplicate sentences and a meaningless subtitle. I have now reverted same as WAS 4.250. The current description of the report on biotechnology consists of: a) a link to the document, b) a single reference for the criticism, and b) a single reference for the FAO response. I believe this is fair and balanced, unlike the text inserted by User:ANFO which adds another 4 references to defend the report. I can easily find another 4 references condeming the report, but I don't believe that would be a constructive way to proceed with this article. If User:ANFO insists on adding more information about this report, I suggest we create a seperate article for this purpose rather than take up more space in the FAO article. In a similar manner I have already created an article on Farmer Field Schools rather than take up space in the FAO article with this topic.APB-CMX 04:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

FAO report on Agricultural Biotechnology. I have re-inserted two points into this section. The first is the director general's insistence that people read his introductory speech and indeed the whole of the report, in gaining an overall context, as he regarded this a key point when this issue was raised. The second is to mention the letter of praise for this report by a large grouping of respected, independent scientists, which is fair after highlighting the letter of criticism. In this way, I aim only to redress directly the points raised in criticism (rather than pursuing a PR drive) and achieve fair balance by ensuring all the main facts are present. I hope this matter can be resolved amicably and constructively. ANFO 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Naming again,sorry
According to the official website, It is named now "FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS". do you think the name should be changed to that? Do you even think that the new name is correct? I'd appreciate a response as I'm translating this version now. --Alnokta 08:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The official name of "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" should not be used as the name of this article. We use whatever article names are most common. For example, an article on a person will use whatever name he is most commonly known as, and not necessarily his full name. To distinguish beteen articles that would otherwise have identical names, additional terms are often included like a middle name or something in parenthesis. If we had two articles on two organizations, both known as "Food and Agriculture Organization", then to distinguish between them it would be sensible to rename this one "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations". But not otherwise. In any case, I think of it as the FAO or UNFAO. WAS 4.250 17:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FAO logo.gif
Image:FAO logo.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 Wikipedia articles 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 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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Farsi
Is there any particular reason why the FAO's Farsi name should be included in the article? The UN only has six official languages: English, French, Spanish, Arabic, Chinese and Russian. Whiel the FAO's Russian name is missing from this article, it's name in Farsi is mentioned. Has there been a glitch somewhere? If the Farsi name is mentioned, that would mean that its name in any language would be acceptable. V85 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC) I think this was already corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.76.37.142 (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

insertion of new listing of Assistant Director-Generals with only one entry
At any one time FAO has around ten Assistant D-Gs. There is absolutely no reason to list them and certainly no need to list all the ADGs since FAO was founded. It does not make much sense to list even the DDGs. The beginning of a new listing with just one ADG and a very unimportant one at that is pointless. The article should not consist of long lists of names. Mr Reddy is not at all notable and does not merit his own article. He certainly does not merit a listing here. I will continue to delete the insertion. Roundtheworld (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Constitution of the FAO
I submitted the text of the Constitution of the FAO to wikisource. Please include a reference here.--Gulpen (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Gaps in article
As presently written, this article says virtually nothing about the FAO's important work in forestry and fisheries. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Blank section stubs added for future additions re: FAO's forestry and fisheries programs and accomplishments. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

World Food Summit
This article touches briefly, but currently not very systematically (or evenly) on the World Food Summits. At the same time, there is a separate, short article on that topic. Would it make sense to merge the latter into this article? Perhaps best left separate so World Food Summit can best be developed on its own right. But still I think it would improve this article to strengthen coverage of that subtopic. Suggestions? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hunger campaign & alliance (merge sections?)
What is the relationship between the "Online campaign against hunger" and the "Alliance Against Hunger and Malnutrition"? Is there some way that these two sections might be merged? Does the latter fit better under "Food" rather than "Agriculture" programs of the FAO? Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

'United Nations' is a name
'United Nations' is a name, not a description. 'International Business Machines' is another example of a name (as opposed to a description). The expression 'the United Nations' is therefore confused language, like it also would be mistaken to refer to IBM as 'the International Business Machines'.

It would improve the language of this article if United Nations were properly referred to by using its name as just that, a name. That is to say one should refer to UN as simply 'United Nations', and avoid referring to it as 'the United Nations'. Of course this also applies to 'Food and Agriculture Organization' (a name, not a description). --62.16.186.44 (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120418195812/http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/treaties/TS1/1948/29 to http://www.fco.gov.uk/resources/en/pdf/treaties/TS1/1948/29
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120226141557/http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=27 to http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=27
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120226141600/http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=556&Itemid=38 to http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=556&Itemid=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

FAO's response to climate disruption
Can we not update this article with research on FAO's response to climate disruption, since climate disruption profoundly impacts food production and 'food security' for populations in resource-poor (and other) areas. Consider the migrations of myriads of Syrians after their agriculture system failed. MaynardClark (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Article title
This organisation has two common names in English, neither of which is the current title of the page (I see that there was some discussion of this in 2006). Officially, it's the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; in almost all contexts, including its own publications, it's called the FAO. I suggest moving the page to one title or the other; I favour the shorter one, by analogy with organisations such as NATO and the BBC. Thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:39, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title as it stands is not really correct. Without doing the research (because i only just saw this comment), i would imagine that of the three potential titles FAO is the best/most common, the current title used next most commonly, and the official title almost never used ~ and for many things "official" titles are not used here.  I quibble with "it's called the FAO"; i don't recall ever seeing it with the definite article.  I am content for the title to stay as it is, however, as FAO redirects to this article, so there's not ever going to be an issue with readers being able to find it. Happy days, LindsayHello 09:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Revisiting this a couple of years later: nothing's changed, we still have a page title that is neither the name of the organisation nor its WP:COMMONNAME, which are "Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations" and "FAO" respectively. Does anyone have any objection, however minimal, to the page being moved to "FAO"? If so I'll probably start a full move discussion; but if not, I'll probably go ahead and move it in a week or two – if I remember, that is! Ping, the only editor who had any comment before. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:18, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping, i'd forgotten about this and had intended to come back to it shortly after our previous comments. I think that moving it to FAO is the right choice; if you don't remember, i'll try and come back and check myself in a week or two.  Happy days, LindsayHello 18:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I support the move to FAO - that title already redirects here, and as discussed in the past, is the most commonly used name.Dialectric (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The current title of Food and Agriculture Organization seems fine. It's what the FAO initialism ultimately represents, and it's better to be descriptive in the first place rather than moving the title to the initialism. Initialisms generally shouldn't be used unless they are already well known by readers (e.g., NASA), but this organization isn't really that well known outside of agricultural circles. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Food and Agriculture Organization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130515054032/http://www.fao.org/getinvolved/ambassadors/ambassadors/ambassadors-ronankeating/en/ to http://www.fao.org/getinvolved/ambassadors/ambassadors/ambassadors-ronankeating/en/
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/61m1XJgRL?url=http://www.fao.org/Legal/member-e.htm to http://www.fao.org/Legal/member-e.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * FAO DG Qu Dongyu.jpg

FAO in full?
To be accurate, this page really should be headed Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations —GRM (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem like a bad idea at first glance since it would be similar to what we do for EPA. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

UN emblem in infobox
I propose removing the UN emblem from the infobox because it makes the actual logo take up the map spot in the infobox? -User talk:KING1116 19:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Row in FAO
Pls answer me 103.180.112.95 (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

hand in hand initiative
One criticised point about the FAO is the "Hand In Hand Initiative". This should be mentioned in the article about FAO. 2003:C1:744:EEB5:49F7:E2B9:8685:B9FB (talk) 17:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)