Misplaced Pages

Talk:List of vegans: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:50, 27 April 2012 editBetty Logan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers78,489 edits William John Sullivan← Previous edit Revision as of 01:58, 29 April 2012 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 edits ConcernsNext edit →
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 48: Line 48:
:Unfortunately it isn't sourced, but if she is involved in PETA it shouldn't be too hard to find one, possibly from the PETA site. ] (]) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC) :Unfortunately it isn't sourced, but if she is involved in PETA it shouldn't be too hard to find one, possibly from the PETA site. ] (]) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


==Sources== ==Reverting==
===Sources===
Betty, I was wondering, per , why someone's website would not be a reliable source for whether that person was a vegan. So long as the person is notable enough to have a WP article, their own website discussing their veganism would surely be the most reliable source. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC) Betty, I was wondering, per , why someone's website would not be a reliable source for whether that person was a vegan. So long as the person is notable enough to have a WP article, their own website discussing their veganism would surely be the most reliable source. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:Self-published sources are never acceptable unless we can corroborate their authorship. Take Twitter for example, only verified accounts are permitted as self-published sources on Misplaced Pages since actions are taken to ascertain the identity of the account holder. Similarly, if there was a published article or a work profile that identified this site as belonging to the person in question then that would probably be ok. That said, if he is publicly vegan there is probably a secondary source out there that we can use instead. ] (]) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC) :Self-published sources are never acceptable unless we can corroborate their authorship. Take Twitter for example, only verified accounts are permitted as self-published sources on Misplaced Pages since actions are taken to ascertain the identity of the account holder. Similarly, if there was a published article or a work profile that identified this site as belonging to the person in question then that would probably be ok. That said, if he is publicly vegan there is probably a secondary source out there that we can use instead. ] (]) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Line 72: Line 73:


:Ok, thankyou for going to the effort to establish the authorship of the site. It's a pretty ropey looking site for a computer programmer, but the main thing is that we can now explicitly link it to him. ] (]) 23:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC) :Ok, thankyou for going to the effort to establish the authorship of the site. It's a pretty ropey looking site for a computer programmer, but the main thing is that we can now explicitly link it to him. ] (]) 23:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

===Concerns===
Betty, you're reverting well-known vegans, the latest ]. Can I ask that you raise concerns on talk rather than reverting so much?

Also, could we rethink the different colours? The templates are making the page slow to load (it took several minutes to load for me at one point today), and section editing is difficult because people have to constantly check at the top to see which colour they're supposed to use. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:If she's that well known you should be able to come up with a better source than the one you did come up with, because we both know what the outcome on that one will be if I'm forced to take it over to the RS noticeboard. As for the legends, another editor and I proposed dropping them and converting to a table but we were shot down. If you want to resurrect the discussion on that be my guest, I will support a sensible solution. ] (]) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

::As I said on the RSN, I respect what you're trying to do here in keeping the list in order, so I have no problem with a little ]ership if the result is a better quality page. But I think you're taking it too far when you're removing one of the UK's best-known animal liberationists. I added a source from a vegan catering group to remind people to send her birthday wishes. They wouldn't do that if she were a meat-and-two-veg person, so with this kind of individual it boils down to common sense. I don't know whether she has ever said anywhere "I am a vegan," because with someone in her position it's like stating 2+2=4. So the vegan catering source should be enough. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

===Legends/templates===
::I've looked through the archives, and can't see you suggesting that we remove the templates; in fact it looks as though it was you who added them. I think we do need to rethink them, because they are making editing difficult, and as the list gets longer the load time will get worse. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

:::The color coding existed on the ] first (not initiated by me). It was suggested at ] the vegan list should follow the vegetarian list, and pretty much had universal consensus. The list was constructed at ], and as you can see I helped out but was not the primary editor (not that it would matter if I was because the formatting had a clear consensus at the time). Muleattack started a fresh discussion about converting to a table format at ], which I agreed to. You can see a n example of his table at ]. The reason that stalled was because you shot it down: ]. ] (]) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

:::::I "shot it down"? I posted once about it, and said: "It's not a big deal, but I quite like the separate country listings; without that, it's just a mass of names."

:::::I don't mind what format it's in, so long as it doesn't involve large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors. So if no one minds, I would like to start removing them at some point. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::Well look, they are in there because there was a consensus for them, so I suppose there really needs to be a consensus to remove them. I would support their removal within the context of a sensible approach to improve the overall organizational structure of the list; for instance, the current ordering of the list is pointless if you don't know what country someone comes from, you basically have to wordsearch, so the list would be much better ordered alphabetically. I also suspect the page loads slowly because of the images rather than the templates (when you consider how much data is being transferred the templates are equivalent to a couple of images), so if loading times are an issue for you then it would be better to remove all the images. But rather than ripping something out to achieve an objective that it might not achieve, I would rather have a broader discussion about the direction of the list. ] (]) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

::::::::No, the page loads slowly because of the templates; this is a well-known phenomenon on WP. ] is one of many discussions about it over the years. In addition, requiring people to find out which colour to add for which profession makes the page awkward to edit, especially for new editors. So whatever format is chosen, the templates do need to go, because the more we add (as the list grows), the slower the load time. The table suggestion you made in the archives also involved keeping the templates, and so would not have helped. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

{{od}} I've removed them for now to see whether it makes much difference to the speed and ease of editing. If not, we can always revert. The speed problem stems from the colour templates, and also from the citation templates, particularly as lots of the names have multiple unnecessary citation templates after them. The speed issue has something to do with the page being reloaded in its entirety every time a template has to be retrieved.

The second issue with the colours is that it makes editing harder because we have to keep looking to see which colour to use, and this is a bar to editing for new editors. So whatever we end up choosing for the format, ideally it would be something user-friendly that doesn't cause speed issues. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

== Petra Nemcova Image ==
The Petra Nemcova image was removed<sup><small></small></sup> by mistake. I would never intentionally remove an image without a very good reason, and if I had such a reason I would clearly state it.<br />
I was in the process of restoring the image when user ] restored it. --] (]) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
:That's fair enough; sometimes people try to install "pet" images on the article, but we should try to make them representative i.e. men/women/occupational background etc . However, when you removed the image from ] it ideally needed replacing since all the others moved up a slot on the article. If you pull an image because the person is no longer on the article then feel free to replace it with someone from the same country. ] (]) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:58, 29 April 2012

Archiving icon
Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9



This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

A short list

  • Tom Lenk of Buffy fame has stated he his on his way to full fledged veganism and has not consumed animal products for over a year

Sources = http://www.vegtv.com/videolist_celebrities.htm / http://www.animal-lib.org.au/interviews/uri/

Discuss.

I wouldn't trust Uri Geller. He advocated veganism in The Vegan Society's first film 'Truth or Dairy' (1994), yet ate yoghurt on a live breakfast TV programme not long after (causing the Society considerable embarrassment).

96.224.202.145 02:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)RussellSimmons

he is also a vegan if you checked his episode of cribs (mtv) he tells you that and he does yoga

Ted Danson

I deleted Ted Danson from this list because the source quoted mentions that he eats fish

Jorge Garcia (Hurley from Lost)

He's apparently gone vegan but I don't have a good ref for it. Muleattack (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Sara Gilbert

According to her wiki page she is vegan - http://en.wikipedia.org/Sara_Gilbert Muleattack (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't sourced, but if she is involved in PETA it shouldn't be too hard to find one, possibly from the PETA site. Betty Logan (talk) 02:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting

Sources

Betty, I was wondering, per this revert, why someone's website would not be a reliable source for whether that person was a vegan. So long as the person is notable enough to have a WP article, their own website discussing their veganism would surely be the most reliable source. SlimVirgin 22:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-published sources are never acceptable unless we can corroborate their authorship. Take Twitter for example, only verified accounts are permitted as self-published sources on Misplaced Pages since actions are taken to ascertain the identity of the account holder. Similarly, if there was a published article or a work profile that identified this site as belonging to the person in question then that would probably be ok. That said, if he is publicly vegan there is probably a secondary source out there that we can use instead. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Self-published sources may be used to discuss themselves, so long as there is no reason to doubt who the author is. The policy is at WP:SELFPUB. For a list like this, a self-published (or primary) source is the best kind, because only the subject can know whether she's a vegan. So long as the source isn't being used to establish notability (i.e. so long as the subject has a WP article based on other sources), then there is no problem. SlimVirgin 16:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point; there are plenty of self-published sources used to cite the claims on this list, that is not the problem. The point is about substantiating that the site belongs to the person in question. For a verified Twitter account steps have been taken to verify the identity of the account holder; for an official band website the site can usually be proven to represent the band members. In this case there is no evidence that the website belongs to the person in question—for all we know the editor who added the person could have set it up. Anyone can set up a website and pretend to be someone else, or indeed be confused with someone else. If it can be proven the website belongs to the person then it is a credible SPS source, if not then it isn't. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The policy (WP:SELFPUB) doesn't say that a self-published source has to be authenticated. It says: " there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." In the case of the website in question, there's nothing to suggest that it's not his; it's referred to as his on other websites; and he mentions on several pages that he's vegan, or lists vegan restaurants, refers to vegan food, etc. So it seems a reliable-enough source for this point, under the policy. If it were a contentious issue, I'd agree with you, but for something like this it seems good enough. SlimVirgin 18:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The reason the guideline doesn't say that is because it is blindlingly obvious we must be able authenticate that a self-published source is by the subject. The list has a pretty decent standard of sourcing, in that all the sources are either secondary sources or self-published sources which we can authenticate are published by the subject and I see no compelling reason to compromise that. All I can suggest is that you take it up at WP:RSN and get them to ok it as a reliable source if you honestly think it is acceptable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Betty, it's not a guideline, it's part of the sourcing policy, WP:V. I actually wrote that part of the policy, and the reason it doesn't require authentication is that active authentication would be an unreasonable burden. I agree with you that, for anything contentious, or where there is reasonable doubt about authenticity, we should avoid self-published sources, but for material that's consistent with SELFPUB, they are fine. SlimVirgin 20:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

William John Sullivan

On his website, William John Sullivan states that he is vegan..
Whether or not wjsullivan.net is actually his website is being questioned by the Misplaced Pages user Betty Logan who removed Sullivan from the list of vegans, so I will provide two ways that this user might be able to set their mind at ease.
Way 1:
Sullivan's apparent website is wjsullivan.net and his apparent preferred online name is johnsu01
We know that Sullivan is the Executive Director of the Free Software Foundation and that this foundation's website is fsf.org .
So, now what we need is a connection from Sullivan's confirmed work website (fsf.org) to his apparent personal website (wjsullivan.net) or to his apparent preferred online name (johnsu01).
There are two archived documents at fsf.org that provide a decent connection to both.
Way 2:
Contact Sullivan using the information on the fsf.org contact page and ask him if wjsullivan.net is his website. --Andomedium (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thankyou for going to the effort to establish the authorship of the site. It's a pretty ropey looking site for a computer programmer, but the main thing is that we can now explicitly link it to him. Betty Logan (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerns

Betty, you're reverting well-known vegans, the latest Heather Nicholson. Can I ask that you raise concerns on talk rather than reverting so much?

Also, could we rethink the different colours? The templates are making the page slow to load (it took several minutes to load for me at one point today), and section editing is difficult because people have to constantly check at the top to see which colour they're supposed to use. SlimVirgin 23:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

If she's that well known you should be able to come up with a better source than the one you did come up with, because we both know what the outcome on that one will be if I'm forced to take it over to the RS noticeboard. As for the legends, another editor and I proposed dropping them and converting to a table but we were shot down. If you want to resurrect the discussion on that be my guest, I will support a sensible solution. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said on the RSN, I respect what you're trying to do here in keeping the list in order, so I have no problem with a little OWNership if the result is a better quality page. But I think you're taking it too far when you're removing one of the UK's best-known animal liberationists. I added a source from a vegan catering group to remind people to send her birthday wishes. They wouldn't do that if she were a meat-and-two-veg person, so with this kind of individual it boils down to common sense. I don't know whether she has ever said anywhere "I am a vegan," because with someone in her position it's like stating 2+2=4. So the vegan catering source should be enough. SlimVirgin 23:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Legends/templates

I've looked through the archives, and can't see you suggesting that we remove the templates; in fact it looks as though it was you who added them. I think we do need to rethink them, because they are making editing difficult, and as the list gets longer the load time will get worse. SlimVirgin 23:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
The color coding existed on the List of vegetarians first (not initiated by me). It was suggested at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians the vegan list should follow the vegetarian list, and pretty much had universal consensus. The list was constructed at Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp, and as you can see I helped out but was not the primary editor (not that it would matter if I was because the formatting had a clear consensus at the time). Muleattack started a fresh discussion about converting to a table format at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Can_we_make_this_sortable.3F, which I agreed to. You can see a n example of his table at Talk:List_of_vegans/Temp#Table_example. The reason that stalled was because you shot it down: Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Proposal_for_new_format_-_Opinions_needed. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I "shot it down"? I posted once about it, and said: "It's not a big deal, but I quite like the separate country listings; without that, it's just a mass of names."
I don't mind what format it's in, so long as it doesn't involve large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors. So if no one minds, I would like to start removing them at some point. SlimVirgin 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Well look, they are in there because there was a consensus for them, so I suppose there really needs to be a consensus to remove them. I would support their removal within the context of a sensible approach to improve the overall organizational structure of the list; for instance, the current ordering of the list is pointless if you don't know what country someone comes from, you basically have to wordsearch, so the list would be much better ordered alphabetically. I also suspect the page loads slowly because of the images rather than the templates (when you consider how much data is being transferred the templates are equivalent to a couple of images), so if loading times are an issue for you then it would be better to remove all the images. But rather than ripping something out to achieve an objective that it might not achieve, I would rather have a broader discussion about the direction of the list. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
No, the page loads slowly because of the templates; this is a well-known phenomenon on WP. Here is one of many discussions about it over the years. In addition, requiring people to find out which colour to add for which profession makes the page awkward to edit, especially for new editors. So whatever format is chosen, the templates do need to go, because the more we add (as the list grows), the slower the load time. The table suggestion you made in the archives also involved keeping the templates, and so would not have helped. SlimVirgin 00:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've removed them for now to see whether it makes much difference to the speed and ease of editing. If not, we can always revert. The speed problem stems from the colour templates, and also from the citation templates, particularly as lots of the names have multiple unnecessary citation templates after them. The speed issue has something to do with the page being reloaded in its entirety every time a template has to be retrieved.

The second issue with the colours is that it makes editing harder because we have to keep looking to see which colour to use, and this is a bar to editing for new editors. So whatever we end up choosing for the format, ideally it would be something user-friendly that doesn't cause speed issues. SlimVirgin 01:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Petra Nemcova Image

The Petra Nemcova image was removed by mistake. I would never intentionally remove an image without a very good reason, and if I had such a reason I would clearly state it.
I was in the process of restoring the image when user Betty Logan restored it. --Andomedium (talk) 23:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That's fair enough; sometimes people try to install "pet" images on the article, but we should try to make them representative i.e. men/women/occupational background etc . However, when you removed the image from List of vegetarians it ideally needed replacing since all the others moved up a slot on the article. If you pull an image because the person is no longer on the article then feel free to replace it with someone from the same country. Betty Logan (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Category: