Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:55, 8 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. Animal rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Misplaced Pages requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Vital article

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: Mona Chalabi (2014-01-14). "Meat atlas shows Latin America has become a soybean empire". The Guardian.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view an answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does the article distinguish between dietary and ethical vegans? Aren't ethical vegans the only true vegans? The article makes the distinction because reliable sources make it. See Talk:Veganism/Sources for the dietary veganism distinction for a selection of sources. For example: Brenda Davis, Vesanto Melina (2013): "There are degrees of veganism. A pure vegetarian or dietary vegan is someone who consumes a vegan diet but doesn't lead a vegan lifestyle. Pure vegetarians may use animal products, support the use of animals in research, wear leather clothing, or have no objection to the exploitation of animals for entertainment. They are mostly motivated by personal health concerns rather than by ethical objections. Some may adopt a more vegan lifestyle as they are exposed to vegan philosophy." A. Breeze Harper (2011): "Practitioners of veganism abstain from animal consumption (dietary and non-dietary). However, the culture of veganism iself is not a monolith and is composed of many different subcultures and philosophies throughout the world, ranging from punk strict vegans for animals rights, to people who are dietary vegans for personal health reasons, to people who practice veganism for religious and spiritual reasons." Associated Press (2011): "Ethical vegans have a moral aversion to harming animals for human consumption ... though the term often is used to describe people who follow the diet, not the larger philosophy" Gary Francione (2010): "Although veganism may represent a matter of diet or lifestyle for some, ethical veganism is a profound moral and political commitment ..." Robert Garner (2010): "I have been a vegetarian all my adult life, and I am currently a dietary vegan, and I do not wear leather." Layli Phillips (2010): "While some vegans, for instance members of the Straight Edge community, demand unswerving commitment to vegan ideals and practices, many people practice some form of partial veganism. For instance, many vegans refrain from eating meat, dairy, and eggs, yet eat honey or wear leather. Other vegans shop vegan and eat vegan at home, but look the other way at a vegetarian restaurant for dishes that use a small amount of butter, cream, or cheese. ... You get the idea: for many people, veganism is a principle, not a law." International Vegetarian Union (2000): "Dietary Vegan: follows a vegan diet, but doesn't necessarily try and exclude non-food uses of animals." References Brenda Davis, Vesanto Melina, Becoming Vegan: Express Edition, Summertown: Book Publishing Company, 2013, 3. A. Harper Breeze, "Going Beyond the Normative White 'Post-racial' Vegan Epistemology", in Psyche Williams Forson and Carole Counihan (eds.), Taking Food Public: Redefining Foodways in a Changing World, New York: Routledge, 2011, 158. "Vegan Diets Become More Popular, More Mainstream". CBS News. Associated Press. 5 January 2011. Archived from the original on 1 March 2018. Retrieved 1 March 2018. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) Gary L. Francione, "The Abolition of Animal Exploitation" in Gary L. Francione and Robert Garner, The Animal Rights Debate: Abolition Or Regulation?, Columbia University Press, 2010, 62. "A Discussion between Francione and Gardner", in Francione and Garner 2010, 257. Layli Phillips, "Veganism and Ecowomanism", in A. Breeze Harper (ed.), Sistah Vegan: Black Female Vegans Speak on Food, Identity, Health, and Society, Brooklyn: Lantern Books, 2010, 11. "Definitions", International Vegetarian Union, archived 29 September 2000.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

​ Archives by topic: Sources for ethical/dietary distinction​

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)

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.

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)

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)

There are different kinds of vegans, which is precisely why diet alone should not be singled out in the lead sentence. The fact that diet is stated as the particular concern for veganism in general is WP:Undue weight for dietary veganism, to the exclusion of other forms of veganism. The other forms are already mentioned in the second paragraph. Zippy268 (talk) 12:35, 8 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)

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.

"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)

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)

Comment The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions:

• Veganism – The beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin.
• Vegan – A person who abstains from all food of animal origin and avoids the use of animal products in other forms.

I think we can certainly come up with something better than the current phrasing. In truth I don't really know what "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" actually means. Would that preclude going out and buying a dog, for example? All the definitions above stipulate that vegans abstain from/refrain from/do not eat food of animal origin and that they refrain from using/often do not use/avoid products of animal origin. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The 'commodity status' is a bit of emotive vegan rhetoric which suggests that live animals are currently treated in exactly the same way as commodities such as copper or pork bellies. This is obiously wrong. I am told that the word 'commodity' is being used in a special way here but, if that is so, it is misleading to use it in a different way from the way that it is normally used without explanation.

It would be nice to find some sources that are not dictionaries and which may have a little more detail but in is not up to us here to try to create our own interpratation from selected academic (mainly animal activist) sources. Hover over the refs in the lead and you will see what I mean. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This strange idea was thoroughly put to bed in Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

My argument that WP should use normal language rather than activist jargon was not addressed at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That archive has non-activist sources including the UN and an academic book that make the completely and utterly non-controversial and obvious statement that animals are commodities. You have provided no evidence that this is "activist jargon". --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You need to provide evidence that the word 'commodity' is commonly used to describe the way that humans (in general) treat animals (in general) if you want to use this terminology in WP. You have failed to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend anyone who has not been following this page to read Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals. 'Commodity status' may well be how vegans describe the situation of animals but it is not how the rest of the world do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is arguing against the view that eating or using animal products treats animals as "commodities". The problem is that the view of animals as "commodities" embraces far more than what this article goes into. Is pet-owning not treating an animal as a commodity? And yet I know a pet-owning vegan. What about horse-riding or service animals? If a vegan were buried alive in an avalanche would they be against the use of sniffer dogs to locate them? It seems to me there are a lot of issues where animals are treated a commodities but veganism doesn't adopt a stance on. I really think the lead would benefit from more common language. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Pet-selling is the relevant issue, per the definition of commodities. This is consistent with the interpretations of Watson, Francione, and others, and I think the current lede was developed as a compromise between the abolitionist view that veganism is based on the idea that animals should not be articles of trade, and other views, such as that veganism is just a diet. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Speaking in terms of the commodification of animals is quite common, as the sources show. Having a companion animal doesn't involve treating the animal as a commodity, but buying or selling animals would. Ethical vegans may live with rescue animals, but are much less likely to have purchased one. They are split on horse-riding. They might ride horses if a relationship had developed with the horse whereby the human believed no harm was being done, and the horse lived in a good environment. Other ethical vegans argue against this. And yes, there are issues that are hard to resolve, because animal use is ubiquitous. SarahSV 19:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Speaking in terms of the commodification of animals is quite common in vegan sources but it is hardly ever heard in general sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Betty, I am arguing against the use of 'commodity status' for any animals because the it is unclear what the phrase means. At one extreme 'commodity status' just means that they can be bought and sold (and even this is not true for all animals). Legal ownership of animals surely is not the crux of vegan philosophy. If a person buys a country estate legally they own all the game animals on it but the owner often chooses to leave them completely alone. Do vegans object to just the fact that the animals are legally owned? Surely the vegan objection is to hunting or killing them. At the other extreme 'commodity status' means that the owners can do entirely with them as they wish without regard to the animals' feelings or welfare. Almost all countries have laws against what can and cannot be done with animals. I think that it is this meaning that some vegan sources are trying to project, even though it is patently false. We should explain vegan philosophy in language that is clear and accessible to everyone? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, ethical vegans object to animals being property. Martin, please do some reading about these issues. It isn't reasonable to be active on a talk for a long time and not know anything about the topic, so that other people repeatedly have to explain the basics. There was a similiar situation where you seemed to argue that cows aren't kept pregnant to obtain milk. SarahSV 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The basics are that we are writing an encyclopedia article about veganism, which in in general does not object simply to the legal ownership of animals, even if some vegans do. So to use a term that applies only to some vegans as an overall description of veganism in the lead is wrong. The basics are that in Misplaced Pages we do not read primary sources and state our opinions on them in article pages, for matters of opinion we look for quality authoritative secondary sources. Sources which clearly say, 'veganism is...'. I you want to state in the body somewher that some ethical vegans object to the principle of animal ownership that is fine but it is not the defining feature of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Ethical vegans object to the property status of animals; it very much is a defining feature. The second paragraph explains that not all vegans are ethical vegans. There are lots of secondary sources in the article and others you could consult. See footnote 1 and ref 9 as a start. SarahSV 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

See below, we are talking about the lead which is about veganism in general. The section about ethical veganism is another matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Break

Martin, here is a NYT article written by a philosopher and ethical vegan. It explains what ethical veganism is in simple language. For example:

People who are ethical vegans believe that differences in intelligence between human and non-human animals have no moral significance whatsoever. The fact that my cat can’t appreciate Schubert’s late symphonies and can’t perform syllogistic logic does not mean that I am entitled to use him as an organic toy, as if I were somehow not only morally superior to him but virtually entitled to treat him as a commodity with minuscule market value.

SarahSV 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

We are discussing how to define veganism, as a whole, in the article lead. This quote is not about vegans in general but about ethical vegans. It does not attempt to define even ethical veganism but simply gives an example of one specific ethical vegan opinion. The source would support a statement about one aspect of ethical veganism in an appropriate part of the body of this article, in fact I think it should be used, but it is not suitable for an overall definition of veganism in the lead. Combining it with other sources by editors here to generate a combined overall definition is synthesis which is not allowed. Let us find a source which actually answers the question we want answered. Actually we already have one but some here do not like it. If we cannot find a better (acceptable to more people) one we must use the only one that we have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the fact that the author is an ethical vegan means that we should not use his/her language which is, pretty well by definition, NPOV but state the principle in our own neutral language. For example I would be perfectly happy to say in the 'Ethical veganism' section:

(Some) ethical vegans believe that differences in intelligence between human and non-human animals have no moral significance whatsoever and object to what they describe as the treatment of pets by humans as organic toys or even commodities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Vegans are, obviously, the best sources to use to define what they do, but regardless, we use a mixture of vegan and non-vegan sources, and they all define these terms in similar ways, because there isn't any disagreement about the basics. There is disagreement about how far it ought to extend (horseriding, honey?), and there are ethical vegans who don't like that dietary vegans regard themselves as vegans, but that these groups do in fact exist, and that ethical vegans oppose the property status of animals, is not in dispute. SarahSV 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Vegan sources are fine but we should not use their language or repeat their statements in Misplaced Pages's voice because what they say expresses a vegan view of the world. This is the fundamental Misplaced Pages principle of NPOV. Vegan sources are free to state their opinions as forcefully and in whatever language they like, but we do not repeat their opinion as fact or use special meanings of words that are used by the sources to try to make a point. Of course we are free to say what they say and believe, but not in Misplaced Pages's voice. We have to preface their minority opinion with 'Vegans believe that...', or 'Vegans say that...', we cannot repeat their opinion as fact becuase not everyone agrees with them, in fact most people disagree with them. My propose addition to the 'Ethical veganism' above shows how extreme or minority views should be written in WP. This applies equally to the other end of the spectrum, we cannot say, 'It is fine to hunt animals for sport', but we can say 'Hunt supporters say that it is fine to hunt animals for sport'. The first is opinion; the second is fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand that there is a whole range of veganism ranging from the extreme 'animals are human' view expressed above to those who think that it is OK to eat meat in some circumstances and, of course, we should cover that range in the article but the definition of veganism in the lead should be a general statement covering the majority of vegan belief not just a small faction. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed

Please address the concerns on the talk page, as that is the appropriate action, rather than just removing the tag I have placed. Please see talk page section "particularly in diet". The fact that dietary veganism is being specifically mentioned in the first and second paragraphs, meanwhile other forms of veganism are excluded from the first paragraph, is by definition a biased POV. For ethical veganism, "particularly in diet" is simply not true. All the forms of veganism are already mentioned in the second paragraph. It's inappropriate to single out one of them, to the exclusion of others, in the first paragraph. Zippy268 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the point that I am trying to make above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Zippy268, I don't understand your concern. Dietary vegans abstain from the use of animal products in their diet; ethical vegans abstain from the use of animal products in their diet and in the rest of their lifestyle. It is therefore inclusive of both groups to say that veganism involves abstaining from animal products, "particularly in diet." Removing that qualifier would imply that no vegans are dietary vegans. FourViolas (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Correct, and it is also supported by footnote 1. @FourViolas: would a simple Venn diagram be enough to show Zippy and Martin their error? I have removed the unsupported tag. In other words, the sources make a distinction between a dietary vegan, a lifestyle or ethical vegan, and an environmental vegan, all of whom share the practice of consuming a vegan diet, but differ in their positions and approach to the use of animal products and rejection of the commodity status of animals, and the environmental impact of industrial farming. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is an odd discussion. Veganism began over a concern with diet. For years diet was the only thing they campaigned about, and when they expanded to other areas, they made clear to the membership (early Vegan Society) that people should just do what they can, and not worry if they restrict it only to diet. Arguing otherwise shows no knowledge of the history of veganism or how it continues to be practiced.

Also, to argue that the first paragraph doesn't address other forms is demonstrably false. And to have Martin Hogbin agree with that point, when he has been arguing against the description of the other forms in the first paragraph, leaves me somewhat speechless. Do people read what they're arguing about, I wonder. SarahSV 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• 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