| Revision as of 12:25, 7 January 2016 editZippy268 (talk | contribs)62 edits →A good quality independent authoritative source← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:37, 7 January 2016 edit undoMartin Hogbin (talk | contribs)20,189 edits →A good quality independent authoritative sourceNext edit → | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
| :I concur with all of of the above. ] (]) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | :I concur with all of of the above. ] (]) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC) | ||
| Mirriam Webster online says for 'Vegan', 'a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)', and also, ' a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)' | |||
| Oxford Dictionaries online says, 'A person who does not eat or use animal products'. | |||
| Urban Dictionary, ' Someone who slaughters and kills fruits, and vegetables' (-; ] (]) | |||
Revision as of 12:37, 7 January 2016
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
|
 Archives |
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Sources for ethical/dietary distinction |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
| Toolbox |
|---|
Schnitzels
Ben, please don't keep adding those images to the page, particularly the schnitzels. If you don't like the ones we have, there are lots of good vegan food images on Commons and even better ones on Flickr. Most people will release them if asked. SarahSV 05:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Hello,
- 1. What are "these images"? What images do you mean?
- 2. What's wrong with the Schnitzels image?
- I've tried to add only 3 images: the current Schnitzels image, the one of Bixa orellana as a Vegan cosmetics material (which you have deleted for a reason unclear to me), and another one (I think, I can't recall now what it was). You where the only one who objected for all of them, though User:Blue Raspberry objected to another one about a Vegan demonstration in Tel Aviv, Israel in the kinda rational claim that it doesn't seem enough related to Veganism. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Ben, there were more than three (see here, for example, where you added 12). It's partly the number of images, partly the type, partly that you keep adding them over objections. The schnitzel image is a picture of something (not entirely clear what) in a plastic box. The demo image was one of people holding signs in Hebrew. There was the blue plastic pillow filling, the rice and beans made of dairy yoghurt, and the Indian meal that, according to the source (not the image page) was vegetarian, not vegan.
- There are a lot of free vegan images on Commons and Flickr taken by professional vegan caterers, so if you want to replace any of the food images, we can find a new one from those collections. They list the ingredients, so we can be reasonably sure they're vegan, and the images are often professional looking. SarahSV 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Adding one image at a time shouldn't be considered problematic by means of "number of images".
- I see nothing wrong with the type of the image of the Schnitzels or the Bixa Orellana. It's a matter of the majority's consent and I hope there will be a majority to support them from now on.
- You where mainly the only one who objected the images. Sadly there aren't many other opinions in the talk page.
- I have many free images at hand (some are indeed from Flickr) and not only of food. When I'll find the time I'll search and upload. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are a lot of free vegan images on Commons and Flickr taken by professional vegan caterers, so if you want to replace any of the food images, we can find a new one from those collections. They list the ingredients, so we can be reasonably sure they're vegan, and the images are often professional looking. SarahSV 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Ben, thinking about it some more, there's no reason you shouldn't create Veganism in Israel, if you want to make that your focus. I've noticed you adding quite a bit of material about prevalance there, food, etc. It would be good to have individual article countries if the sources exist. We could link to them at the top of the demographics section. SarahSV 21:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Nice idea. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Recent changes - text restored
Viriditas, rather than making threats, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page where discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC) .
- I have just noticed that the text that I supported was that used in the version that was listed as a Good Article. Martin Hogbin (talk) perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your argument consists of pointing me to a version from nine years ago. Please remind me: why is this older version an improvement? Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- It was then listed as a Good Article and has since been delisted.
- The current description seems to be extracted and synthesised from a number of sources. The former description was from an obviously independent (of editiors' opinions here) and authoritative source. Why do you prefer the current description? Martin Hogbin (talk)
- @Martin Hogbin: Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals you are aware of the consensus on this issue and understand the problem with this revision. Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_9#Too_promotional you have concerns about promoting the Vegan Society. It is impossible for me to believe that you cannot see what is wrong with the revision to the lede, which gives disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to the Vegan Society's view. In the context of your behavior on Green topics generally, it's becoming very hard to assume good faith, as several editors have pointed out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have looked at the section you link to and all I can see is the opinions of various editors, including me. I cannot see what is wrong with using a quote from the vegan society compared with what seems to me just the opinion of editors here. Although the current text does have references it seems to have been put together from snippets specially chosen by editors here to promote their personal opinions. Ideally we need a single descrption from an independent, neutral, quality secondary source on the subject.
- @Martin Hogbin: Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals you are aware of the consensus on this issue and understand the problem with this revision. Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_9#Too_promotional you have concerns about promoting the Vegan Society. It is impossible for me to believe that you cannot see what is wrong with the revision to the lede, which gives disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to the Vegan Society's view. In the context of your behavior on Green topics generally, it's becoming very hard to assume good faith, as several editors have pointed out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding what you call my 'behavior on Green topics generally', this consists mainly of disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda. WP should be neutral. However individuals may feel about green issues WP is not the place to promote green politics.
- When you say you find it hard to assume good faith on my part what exactly do you mean. Do you think some person or corporation is controlling me? Do you think that I have some agenda other than maintaining a neutral, mainstream, view on WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Martin Hogbin, I do not know whether someone is controlling you. It's a very weird thing for you to bring up, given that I've never made any such suggestion, and it seems like a straw man. I do think that any intelligent person who looks at your edit history here, on the gulf oil spill, or on other environmental issues, will conclude that you are WP:!HERE when it comes to these topics, and will see through your attempts to paint editors who express this concern as bullies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your mention of WP:!HERE is very appropriate. I am here to build an encyclopdia; I am not here to write articles that will change opinions, promote views, make judgements on companies, or to champion the environment, animal rights, left wing politics, right wing politics, or anything else, however worthy you may think the cause may be, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopdia. Please have a read of a good quality written encyclopdia to remind youself of the language, style, and content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
- My complaint is not that you disagree with me, we have to accept that our opinions on some subjects differ and that they are likely to remain that way, neither is it that you express your opinion here, or that you challenge mine. My complaint is that you prosecute your argument by making personal attacks and accusations against me, for example criticising my 'behaviour' in a completely different article, suggesting that I am not editing in good faith.
- I can assure you that I am here to create an encyclopdia which should contain all the world's knowledge. It is not intended to be a mouthpiece for personal opinions and philosophies, however sincerely held..
- I am happy to carry on discussing the content of this article with you in a civil manner if you wish, as I am doing with two other editors below, but please leave the personal accusations out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- Martin Hogbin, I do not know whether someone is controlling you. It's a very weird thing for you to bring up, given that I've never made any such suggestion, and it seems like a straw man. I do think that any intelligent person who looks at your edit history here, on the gulf oil spill, or on other environmental issues, will conclude that you are WP:!HERE when it comes to these topics, and will see through your attempts to paint editors who express this concern as bullies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the quote is UNDUE; the Vegan Society is only one of many vegan groups, and I think it makes sense to refer to scholarly rather than propagandistic definitions when possible. FourViolas (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- It is a fair point that a quote from the Vegan Society might be considered propagandistic (is there such a word?). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- Although, when I look at it, “a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.” it seems a clear and neutral description. I would not criticise it as being too promotional. I have also noticed that this definition is quoted in one of the references cited in the lead.
- What exactly is your objection to this wording? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Part of the Vegan Society's definition is already in the lead, in the third paragraph where we allude to the history. Because they created the term, it's appropriate to mention there how they moved from diet in 1944 to any animal use in 1951. It's not appropriate to prioritize their current definition, especially not in the first sentence, because now there are competing views. SarahSV 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
- I fail to how due weight applies here. Although I see a long discussion about the idiosycratic way that 'commodity' is used in the lead, I see no discussion of the various different views of what 'veganism' means. If we are to give due weight, I would expect to see a discussion along the lines of 'X says 'veganism is ...', 'Y says veganism is ...' etc. All I see is a editor-based synthesis of words and snippets from a collection of sources; essentially WP:OR.
I explained why I reverted Martin Hogbin; the Vegan Society quote is WP:Undue weight for the WP:Lead sentence. And there's also the fact that there are different types of vegans, as noted in the second paragraph of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Particularly in Diet
I would like to see a source for the specification that veganism is abstinence from using animal products "particularly in diet". The cite on that sentence does not specify that. Zippy268 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Searches for veganism on Google scholar bring up a lot of papers that treat veganism specifically as a diet. The following papers which treat it as an ideology also support the qualifier "particularly in diet":. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of people who write scholarly papers on veganism, aren't even vegan themselves. I would like to know what page of the material you cited specifies the definition as "particularly diet" and why you think these authors have authority over the definition of veganism to begin with. I can provide numerous sources that specify that it is not particular to diet and that diet is only one part of a much bigger picture. Zippy268 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- It sounds like you haven't read the article you are edit warring on. Why in the world would someone have to be a vegan to write a paper about it? That's a fallacious argument. Do you deny the distinction between dietary, ethical, and environmental veganism? The authors have authority over the definition because that's how we write encyclopedia articles—based solely on reliable sources. You say you've been editing Misplaced Pages for a decade but it sounds like you've been editing for ten minutes. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are in violation Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines again...in addition to spewing insults at me on my talk page, which is also a violation of both of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- As it happens, I do not agree with Zippy on article content but I do agree with Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Please let us stick to discussing content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are in violation Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines again...in addition to spewing insults at me on my talk page, which is also a violation of both of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- These are two highly cited papers on veganism as a cultural movement. Actually look at them and you will see the statement supported right in the beginning of each. For example, in the 2nd one by Cherry, the third sentence after the abstract is "The vegan movement is a good example: vegans are strict vegetarians who, in addition to not eating meat, fish, or fowl, also do not consume any animal products such as dairy and eggs. Since veganism focuses on eliminating animal products from people’s diets and lifestyles, veganism is often considered as only one goal or tactic of the animal rights movement (Munro, 2005)." --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your idea that they are highly cited sources is your personal opinion. Your quote also does not specify that it is particular in diet. The proper authority for the definition of the term veganism is the Vegan Society as they are the ones who coined the term to begin with. They specifically do not specify that it is particular to diet because it was and is not intended to be particularly in diet. Please see below for the correct description and definition.
- It sounds like you haven't read the article you are edit warring on. Why in the world would someone have to be a vegan to write a paper about it? That's a fallacious argument. Do you deny the distinction between dietary, ethical, and environmental veganism? The authors have authority over the definition because that's how we write encyclopedia articles—based solely on reliable sources. You say you've been editing Misplaced Pages for a decade but it sounds like you've been editing for ten minutes. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- A lot of people who write scholarly papers on veganism, aren't even vegan themselves. I would like to know what page of the material you cited specifies the definition as "particularly diet" and why you think these authors have authority over the definition of veganism to begin with. I can provide numerous sources that specify that it is not particular to diet and that diet is only one part of a much bigger picture. Zippy268 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- "Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.
- "When the society became a registered charity in 1979, the Memorandum and Articles of Association updated this definition of “veganism”" as:
- " a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
- There is no reason why diet should be singled out in the lead statement when veganism is not particular to diet to begin with. In fact, it's a misleading statement. Diet is no more important than any other aspect of veganism according to the people who invented the word to begin with. Veganism is not particularly in diet anymore than it is particularly in clothing or particularly in toiletries, or any other use of animal products. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there are many good reasons. See the thread directly above this one. I assume it's just a coincidence that you, Tha1uw4nt, and Martin Hogbin are all edit warring just within the last 24 hours over the Vegan Society definition? To me it appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- That is correct. It is a coincidence that these other people are discussing this. However, at the same time, no it's not a coincidence because the definition of veganism is not particular to diet. No, those are not good reasons above. And the idea that a disagreement between authors constitutes a "disruption", is nonsensical. The idea that this constitutes "edit warring" is also nonsensical. Zippy268 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- On the contrary, there are many good reasons. See the thread directly above this one. I assume it's just a coincidence that you, Tha1uw4nt, and Martin Hogbin are all edit warring just within the last 24 hours over the Vegan Society definition? To me it appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason why diet should be singled out in the lead statement when veganism is not particular to diet to begin with. In fact, it's a misleading statement. Diet is no more important than any other aspect of veganism according to the people who invented the word to begin with. Veganism is not particularly in diet anymore than it is particularly in clothing or particularly in toiletries, or any other use of animal products. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The lead of this article is biased towards diet. Zippy268 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
A good quality independent authoritative source
Might I suggest that this dispute could be resolved by finding some authoritative independent (neither pro nor anti veganisn) sources which define the meaning of the word. At present we have a description based mainly on the opinions of editors here and supported by a synthesis of exerpts from selected sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Please remember the meaning we give in this article should not be the meaning that editors here think it ought to be (even if they have done extensive private research on the subject) but the generally inderstood meaning of the term.
My dictionary (Collins 1994) says for 'Vegan', 'A person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any purpose'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I concur with all of of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Mirriam Webster online says for 'Vegan', 'a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)', and also, ' a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)'
Oxford Dictionaries online says, 'A person who does not eat or use animal products'.
Urban Dictionary, ' Someone who slaughters and kills fruits, and vegetables' (-; Martin Hogbin (talk)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Animal rights articles
- Top-importance Animal rights articles
- WikiProject Animal rights articles
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- High-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press