Revision as of 21:47, 24 July 2015 editSlimVirgin (talk | contribs)172,064 editsm sorry, didn't see the post above it← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:56, 25 July 2015 edit undoFourViolas (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers7,749 edits →Several vegans: here's a bunch more researchNext edit → | ||
Line 517: | Line 517: | ||
===Several vegans=== | ===Several vegans=== | ||
FourViolas, about restoring , I see what you're trying to do, but it looks odd. What early research did Carrie Packwood-Freeman conduct? I'm aware of one 2012 article on the turkey pardoning, and she's neither a psychologist nor sociologist. Joy, yes. If Hank Rothgerber conducted early research on it (do you have examples?), and is a vegan and a psychologist or sociologist, that makes two. Most people writing about this haven't discussed their own diets, and if we're going to single out one group, it raises the question as to whether we have to single out meat-eaters too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC) | FourViolas, about restoring , I see what you're trying to do, but it looks odd. What early research did Carrie Packwood-Freeman conduct? I'm aware of one 2012 article on the turkey pardoning, and she's neither a psychologist nor sociologist. Joy, yes. If Hank Rothgerber conducted early research on it (do you have examples?), and is a vegan and a psychologist or sociologist, that makes two. Most people writing about this haven't discussed their own diets, and if we're going to single out one group, it raises the question as to whether we have to single out meat-eaters too. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I picked researchers sloppily, pretty much on the basis of how often we ourselves cited them. has been heavily cited (btw, he's looked into many aspects of carnism, including pet ownership, masculinity, and vegan-vegetarian-carnist relations, and we should work him in more), and I was being self-consciously non-recentist by defining the first decade or so of any field to be "early", even if that period is ongoing. Gibert/Desaulniers have also been widely referenced, and are also vegan (, ); I'd still like to work in their "normative import" (see ], because it's true and relevant: most people who talk about carnism do so with the intention of working against it, and the only way we can make a fair article in light of that is by allowing an RS (indeed, one which encourages this use of "carnism") say it. Piazza is a vegan, too , and an influential voice in carnism studies. | |||
:On the other hand, Brock is "not a vegetarian" ( 2:30), and neither is Rozin (). Loughnan probably eats meat too (). <small>Are you listening, btw, ]? Those three are the core of the psychological research into, and definition of, the meat paradox and attendant moral dissonance. is an essay by Brock about the psychological, moral, and cultural features of carnism; we have peer-reviewed sources saying the same things, but I thought you might want to hear an omnivore scholar articulate them.</small> | |||
:Anyway, I'm going to add Piazza as an early vegan scholar, remove Packwood-Freeman as not a formative voice in the field, and incorporate G/D's assertion that the concept of carnism can be utilized against the system of carnism. I will optimistically pretend to myself that that will put an end to objections that the article fails to attribute its ideas properly. For fairness, and for the sake of the article's broader credibility, I think it would be great to find a way to point out that important research on the meat paradox and other aspects of carnism has been conducted by psychologists who are themselves carnists. ] (]) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:56, 25 July 2015
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Definition is confused
I am still confused regarding the definition of carnism. The leading sentence states "Carnism is the prevailing belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes" I am fine up until "...and other purposes". If the term is not used for the purposes of eating only, then what is the difference between "carnism" and "speciesism". The use of "carn -" is presumably from the Latin, caro, meaning 'meat' or 'flesh'. If this is the case, why is it being used for "...and other purposes."? The dictionary definition is also confusing. It states "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products." Does "consume" mean "eat"? We are all consumers of animal products, but we may not be eating those products. I think the article needs to be much clearer on this.DrChrissy 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources are not completely clear and I think there may not be a truly precise definition. However other reasons for killing animals I can think of that would definitely be considered carnist are fur and sport hunting; further reasons which may or may not be include animal research and euthanasia for minor injuries. Speciesism is much broader than just killing and opposition to "speciesism" may involve objections to things like abuse of animals in circuses, for example. The current definition is supported by sources, but I'll see if I can do some digging and give you a more satisfying answer. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- To my mind, it really comes down to whether carnism relates only to eating animals - that's why I mentioned the derivation of Caro as meat. I actually don't see why the term carnist should apply to killing animals for fur - that practice, to me, is an example of speciesism. Looking forward to further discussion. DrChrissy 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me. I think the concept is that the alleged prejudices that result from eating meat lead to thinking which justifies other forms of animal exploitation, and "carnism" refers to these patterns of thinking. I'll have to get back to you after I've looked through the sources more carefully to check the exact wording they use. Certainly most of the psychological studies have been about meat specifically, but at least one of the sociologists, Gutjahr, clearly construes carnism much more broadly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some explicit definitions.
- Joy's book (2010): "Carnism is the belief system in which eating certain animals is considered ethical and appropriate. Carnists - people who eat meat - are not the same as carnivores. ... Carnists eat meat not because they need to, but because they choose to, and choices always stem from beliefs."
- DeMello (2012): "Melanie Joy coined the term carnism to refer to the belief system which supports meat eating."
- Gutjahr (2013): " identifies the normalization mechanisms that reproduce the violent system of meat consumption, as a perception and belief scheme, which is deeply internalized in the subjects (similar to an ideology), which she calls Carnism."
- Gibert & Desaulniers (2014): "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products. It is essentially the opposite of veganism." Several pages later they give us "How then are speciesism and carnism to be distinguished? First, speciesism is broader than carnism. For instance, you can be vegan and consider that no animals deserve to be exploited for food or leather but still morally value the life of a horse more than that of a cow because of their belonging to a hierarchically lower-ranked species. In this case, you are probably not a carnist but, in a sense, you are still a speciesist."
- Joy's website (2015): "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the flesh of some animals disgusting and the flesh of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice - and choices always stem from beliefs."
- The focus is clearly on meat, but Gibert & Desaulniers take a broader view and explicitly include leather. From the context of Gutjahr's paper it's clear she thinks that the "deeply internalized belief scheme" called carnism supports other kinds of violence, but she's a bit oblique. The "opposite of veganism" description, which is attributable to both Joy and Gibert-Desaulniers, and the fact that even the title of Joy's book references leather, makes me think that the products which carnism supports the consumption of are a bit more general a class than just meat. I wrote the current version, which makes meat the focus but doesn't specify the "other purposes", because this seems to be consistent with the sources. I don't think there's strong support in the sources for clarifying just what the "other purposes" are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for gathering those definitions for direct comparison. We could tweak the last words to "…killing animals for human uses, particularly food" if that would help. FourViolas (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good research. I suggest you use Joy's definition as the first sentence of the article making it clear that the original meaning was related only to eating animals. Then, the second sentence could be, "Later interpretations have more broadly construed the term to mean other uses of animal products. Then, in the body of the article, you could have a separate section perhaps called "Interpretation" where you just about copy-and-paste the interpretations you gave above. I think that would keep everybody happy. When adding to the article, editors can write "According to ....." and we all know what we are talking about.DrChrissy 11:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for gathering those definitions for direct comparison. We could tweak the last words to "…killing animals for human uses, particularly food" if that would help. FourViolas (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, here are some explicit definitions.
- It's not clear to me. I think the concept is that the alleged prejudices that result from eating meat lead to thinking which justifies other forms of animal exploitation, and "carnism" refers to these patterns of thinking. I'll have to get back to you after I've looked through the sources more carefully to check the exact wording they use. Certainly most of the psychological studies have been about meat specifically, but at least one of the sociologists, Gutjahr, clearly construes carnism much more broadly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- To my mind, it really comes down to whether carnism relates only to eating animals - that's why I mentioned the derivation of Caro as meat. I actually don't see why the term carnist should apply to killing animals for fur - that practice, to me, is an example of speciesism. Looking forward to further discussion. DrChrissy 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Reintroduction of "...for other purposes" is, IMHO, very unhelpful. With this phrase in place, I can see no difference between "Carnism" and "speciesism" and I would propose they be merged. If the scope of carnism is on consuming meat, it is a different story and the 2 deserve separate articles. At the moment, it is confusing for the reader to be told carnism is killing "...for other purposes" but then read about the "Meat paradox" (eating meat) and "Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine an apparent paradox in most people's behavior toward animals – that they exhibit compassion toward some species while eating others" (again, eating meat).DrChrissy 13:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, I've removed it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It really reads better - we can expand on interpretations and a broadening of the meaning after we have a nice, tight definition.DrChrissy 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlink "hegemony" ?
@User:Sammy1339 Hi. Why did you unlink "hegemony" in the article?
- Because it's a metaphorical usage and the Misplaced Pages article hegemony is about international politics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is a very unusual word and if it is being use as a metaphor, it is likely to confuse. Readers will look it up in WP and will wonder what it means. Using it in this way so early in the article is very likely to lose readership of the article.DrChrissy 13:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Granted, but if I clicked on that only to read about dominant relationships among nations, I'd only end up more confused. It violates at least the spirit of WP:EGG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Perhaps you could explain what it is being used as a metaphor for? Maybe there is a more accessible word or phrase.DrChrissy 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly. Pinging SlimVirgin, who added this phrase. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I understood it readily as the second definition given at wikt:hegemony, but I've spent a lot of time around feminists talking about hegemonic masculinity and the like. I'm convinced it's the most correct word, but I can see how you might also find it overly technical. Perhaps it could be moved later in the lead (with scare quotes and a citation), or (easiest solution) just wikt-linked as tricky words sometimes are. FourViolas (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Third option: pipe it to cultural hegemony. FourViolas (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how cultural hegemony is relevant. By stretching quite a bit, one might imagine "society" as consisting of, say, both humans and domestic animals, with humans being the "ruling class," so that human supremacism is a hegemony in the Marxian sense. But how is carnism one? Your comment about hegemonic masculinity is probably right on point: feminist philosophers tend to have Whorfian views and abuse language accordingly; the word carnism itself comes in part from a feminist-inspired attempt at re-framing the conversation about meat, as made clear in Joy's 2001 Satya article. It seems probable that "hegemony" is used here in a similar way, basically to say that carnism is a dominant ideology. I would classify this as a metaphor, and I don't think we can link to a definition that really fits. But I'll wait for SV's opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was just about to say it was much clearer now that I had read Cultural hegemony! I really think it is such an unusual word that it must be linked to something. Shall we wait for SlimVirgin's input.DrChrissy 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, responding to the ping, by all means remove it if it's confusing. I'm fine with that. Sarah 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and removed it, because the source uses "hegemonic" to describe the rhetoric of the meat industry. It may use "hegemony" deeper in the article; I'm currently only looking at the abstract, and don't have time to look further, so I've removed it to be safe. If someone wants to restore it, I don't mind. Sarah 04:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was just about to say it was much clearer now that I had read Cultural hegemony! I really think it is such an unusual word that it must be linked to something. Shall we wait for SlimVirgin's input.DrChrissy 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see how cultural hegemony is relevant. By stretching quite a bit, one might imagine "society" as consisting of, say, both humans and domestic animals, with humans being the "ruling class," so that human supremacism is a hegemony in the Marxian sense. But how is carnism one? Your comment about hegemonic masculinity is probably right on point: feminist philosophers tend to have Whorfian views and abuse language accordingly; the word carnism itself comes in part from a feminist-inspired attempt at re-framing the conversation about meat, as made clear in Joy's 2001 Satya article. It seems probable that "hegemony" is used here in a similar way, basically to say that carnism is a dominant ideology. I would classify this as a metaphor, and I don't think we can link to a definition that really fits. But I'll wait for SV's opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure exactly. Pinging SlimVirgin, who added this phrase. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Perhaps you could explain what it is being used as a metaphor for? Maybe there is a more accessible word or phrase.DrChrissy 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Granted, but if I clicked on that only to read about dominant relationships among nations, I'd only end up more confused. It violates at least the spirit of WP:EGG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is a very unusual word and if it is being use as a metaphor, it is likely to confuse. Readers will look it up in WP and will wonder what it means. Using it in this way so early in the article is very likely to lose readership of the article.DrChrissy 13:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I found a source and put it back with the wikt-link, because I do think it's the precise word which means "belief system endorsed by so many people that it's impolite to question it," but if anyone opposes go ahead and re-remove it—not a big deal. FourViolas (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
RfC concerning this article
There is an RfC concerning this article and the article on veganism. All editors here are invited to comment there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Not neutral - I am commenting here since I don't think it makes sense to evaluate the articles together. Viewing this article as as someone with vegetarian tendencies and a huge supporter and donor to the Humane Society, I say with hopefully little bias that this article is not neutral. Examples: calling it an "unquestioned default", implications of animal cruelty, implying all or most meat eats suffer from cognitive dissonance which then must be "moderated", comparisons to vegans suffering from the same oppression as women/feminism, and generally no arguments "for" Carnism that are not cast in a negative light. 217IP (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- 217IP, you are, of course, free to comment here but it would be useful to hear what you have to say on the RfC page. What makes the NPOV status of both articles clear is the discrepancy between the two. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
4V's copyedit and subsequent discussion
- Thanks for your input! I'm currently working on addressing some of those concerns, please don't edit the article yourself for a few minutes to avoid a WP:Edit conflict. FourViolas (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- All right, go ahead and take your turn if you like. I will remove "unquestioned default" when I figure out which source(s) support it, as it implies that it ought to be questioned. I toned down some claims and backed off others, especially when sources did not directly support the wording. Almost all the sources cited which aren't intended as activism are scientific studies of the cognitive dissonance caused by the meat paradox, so I don't think we can leave that out while respecting the balance of opinions presented in reliable sources, but there, too, I hewed back to "negative emotions" instead of "moral conflict", and cut language ("attempt") implying most people actively experience moral unease about omnivory. I think it's fair to have a brief paragraph, clearly labeled as vegans' POV, saying "vegans think carnism is really bad, and compare it to what feminists call 'the patriarchy'". FourViolas (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Violas - I think you're doing a great job. I would mention however, that having a section specifically outlining vegan POV seems to fall under WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". It seems like this section can be removed and simply have a see also:Ethics_of_eating_meat since it is duplicating content anyway. I could see how it can be argued to include this if, like the ethics page, at least half the page discussed a non-vegan perspective. Since this article essentially doesn't include non-vegan POV at all, it seems especially egregious to include a vegan POV section. In my opinion, this article should really be focusing on the discussion of the word Carnism as a neologism rather than trying to replicate the ethics article. 217IP (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- @217IP: We have a lot of material on vegan opinions about carnism, and its place in vegan discourse. I kept this section extremely brief because of the type of concern you cite, but given its prominence in the sources we can't eliminate it altogether. Regarding "unquestioned default," that's not my language, but we have many sources saying essentially that and none contradicting it, so I don't see a problem. Our job is to represent what sources say, not what people expect to see, and we are already bending over backwards to avoid including criticism of the central "pro-carnist" ideas, like the 4Ns, which, please note, are not refuted despite that we have multiple sources, including academic papers with dozens of citations, criticizing these arguments harshly without mincing words. @FourViolas: I found your most recent edit a bit unhelpful as it mostly uses more qualified language to say the same thing, sacrificing flow and readability without changing the POV, and contrary to what you suggested on the other page it's not acceptable to violate WP:OR to create the appearance of neutrality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is important to keep WP:BIASED in mind for the sources used in this article. The sources are not required to be unbiased, but the way the article is written must remain unbiased despite the wording used in sources. In that particular example (unquestioned default) it would be much better for NPOV to include those words as a quote of an author and to not make it the second sentence of the article. The same would also apply to the implication of animal cruelty - that's a better example of something that really might be improved if quoted as WP:BIAS demonstrates.217IP (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources in this article are mostly reputably published academic books and journal articles. WP:BIASED is about partisan sources. The only sources in the article that this guideline could be construed as applying to are The Center for Global Nonkilling, whose book is cited only for two very non-controversial claims, and Gary Francione's website, which is cited for opposition to the carnism concept (albeit from a different direction than some editors want to see.) The two things about you are objecting to are basically agreed on by all the sources, so it would make no sense to attribute them or put them in scare quotes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is important to keep WP:BIASED in mind for the sources used in this article. The sources are not required to be unbiased, but the way the article is written must remain unbiased despite the wording used in sources. In that particular example (unquestioned default) it would be much better for NPOV to include those words as a quote of an author and to not make it the second sentence of the article. The same would also apply to the implication of animal cruelty - that's a better example of something that really might be improved if quoted as WP:BIAS demonstrates.217IP (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Throwing in my two cents. As one of the people who's expressed neutrality concerns, I actually agree with Sammy that it would be silly to omit this. Acknowledging that this idea is prominent in vegan discourse and is mainly advocated by vegans actually helps check any undue weight given to vegan sources by acknowledging where these ideas come from. If anything, I'd like to see that type of language expanded (which was done a bit in FourViolas' recent copyedit). ~ Rob 04:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it is fine to recognize vegan support of Carnism and the views they share. I don't think it's fine to have a sentence discussing how vegans view their plight in the same way feminists view the patriarchy and it doesn't make sense to me for the vegan POV to have it's own section when this can be easily summarized elsewhere in a single sentence or two. 217IP (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)Hi there, Sammy. I'll itemize, you (and everyone) can respond. I was well aware of WP:VALID, as you may remember from the AfD and elsewhere. However, as Rob explained, we're dealing with a word used exclusively by partisans, and so we need to make more of an effort to seek objective language (not pro-meat; objective) rather than rephrasing without changing the partisan tone.
- @217IP: We have a lot of material on vegan opinions about carnism, and its place in vegan discourse. I kept this section extremely brief because of the type of concern you cite, but given its prominence in the sources we can't eliminate it altogether. Regarding "unquestioned default," that's not my language, but we have many sources saying essentially that and none contradicting it, so I don't see a problem. Our job is to represent what sources say, not what people expect to see, and we are already bending over backwards to avoid including criticism of the central "pro-carnist" ideas, like the 4Ns, which, please note, are not refuted despite that we have multiple sources, including academic papers with dozens of citations, criticizing these arguments harshly without mincing words. @FourViolas: I found your most recent edit a bit unhelpful as it mostly uses more qualified language to say the same thing, sacrificing flow and readability without changing the POV, and contrary to what you suggested on the other page it's not acceptable to violate WP:OR to create the appearance of neutrality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Violas - I think you're doing a great job. I would mention however, that having a section specifically outlining vegan POV seems to fall under WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". It seems like this section can be removed and simply have a see also:Ethics_of_eating_meat since it is duplicating content anyway. I could see how it can be argued to include this if, like the ethics page, at least half the page discussed a non-vegan perspective. Since this article essentially doesn't include non-vegan POV at all, it seems especially egregious to include a vegan POV section. In my opinion, this article should really be focusing on the discussion of the word Carnism as a neologism rather than trying to replicate the ethics article. 217IP (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Current | Suggested | Reason |
---|---|---|
Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain animal species as food, for example, cows and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, | Carnists accept that certain animal species classified as food, such as cows and pigs in the West, are treated in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to certain non-food species, such as dogs. | More concise, specify that only some species get protection (slitting a beetle's neck isn't, legally speaking, animal cruelty), "justify" is loaded (implying challenge) |
social psychologist Melanie Joy | vegan social psychologist Melanie Joy | WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV |
apparent paradox | perceived paradox | it ain't apparent to everyone, and the psych papers treat the term "paradox" at arms' length |
in which people who would otherwise oppose harming animals engage in behavior that requires them to be harmed. | in which people who oppose harming animals in general engage in behavior that requires food animals to be harmed. | equally supported by sources, clearer, hints towards rs-attested "solutions" to the dissonance (foreshadowing—great literary technique for complicated issues) |
Psychologists suggest that this is enabled by the "Four Ns," | Psychologists suggest that negative feelings evinced by this conflict are counteracted by the "Four Ns," | independent editors objected to "enable", so changed to clinically objective psych terminology |
==earlier ideas== | put "For most of history, human use of animals as food has been considered natural and normal." before Plutarch | WP:Due, privilege majority/mainstream viewpoints over minority/fringe |
before Plutarch | <!-- Is giving a blockquote to the most disgust-appealing anti-carnist argument really NPOV? --> | Well, is it? We could easily summarize Plutarch's points without mentioning gore (easy target for accusations of appeal to emotion) |
orthodox views | conventional views | "orthodox" implies a codified sense of "rightness" (ortho-, straight); where the ideology in question is tacit and implicit, "conventional" is more appropriate |
Meat-eaters attempt to moderate this moral dissonance in a number of ways. | This can produce negative emotions if not mitigated.<ref name="Loughnan2014" /> Meat-eaters resolve this dissonance in a number of ways. | Sources cited here don't imply "meat guilt" is omnipresent or unsurmountable for meat-eaters. |
trivialized the link | made light of the link | not great wording, but "trivialize" is loaded in implying topic is not trivial |
===denial of animal mind=== | This is a psychologically effective strategy, because beings who are perceived as less able to suffer are considered to be of less moral concern, and therefore more acceptable as food.<ref name="Loughnan2014" /><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Waytz|first1=Adam|…</ref> | further detail, supported by new source, mitigating concern repeatedly raised that carnist "coping mechanisms" were being straw-manned and undefended |
bias subjective perceptions | influence subjective perceptions | we shouldn't say whether it's inappropriate to change perceptions |
hierarchical ideologies | hierarchical or authoritarian ideologies | just as well sourced as the other, also relevant |
== Vegan discourse == | == In vegan discourse == | describe how "carnism" is used, avoid WP:COATRACKing vegan arguements (more work needed) |
dominant normative ideology | postulated dominant normative ideology | at least one RS already in the article (Francione) rejects the definition |
- And a moment of self-indulgent whining: I'd be feeling friendlier if you had left the parts you agreed with up and specified your concerns here, per WP:ROWN, so I'll take a break for now so I can edit when I'm at my best. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. "Carnists accept" is not a good phrase, for reasons previously raised by SlimVirgin. It implies conscious endorsement (she objected to the term "endorse".) It also calls people "carnists" which might be read as pejorative. I would try to avoid that unless the term is self-applied.
- 2. "Vegan social psychologist Melanie Joy" - no way. This is no more acceptable than writing "black physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson" when citing his comments on a racial issue. Besides, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is explicitly about biased statements of opinion. This passage is about who coined the term.
- 3. I understand "apparent" as almost a synonym of "perceived," and since the papers by Loughnan, Bastian, Piazza all assert this without equivocation, we shouldn't be trying to introduce doubt where there is none in the sources.
- 4. There's no important difference in these sentences other than a superfluous "in general" and "food" making the second version a little clunkier. This is not affecting any POV issue that might be there as the two versions have the same meaning.
- 5. This might be okay, although again, we shouldn't avoid saying what the sources say because people think it looks bad. This again is really not much more than a way to say the same thing with more words.
- 6. We don't need extra invisible comments in the wikitext. I thought the quote was relevant for its historical interest, and because efforts to paraphrase Plutarch would lead to questions about what he really meant. It's balanced by Descartes' position which immediately follows, an on which I had originally expanded a bit. Also though, I originally had this section at the bottom, and I believe you moved it to the top.
- 7. Moving sentences around often disrupts flow as happened here. This sentence ("For most of history...") sets up Descartes' position, not Plutarch's. Furthermore Plutarch's position is earlier and is more directly relevant to the central idea of the article.
- 8. Orthodox vs. conventional: there's not much difference but "orthodox" implies they were standard views, not just widely held ones.
- 9. Your new text is fine here, except I would remove "if not mitigated" as being not exactly what the source says.
- 10. "Made light of" is just not accurate, as it implies joking or something. They didn't give much attention to it at all - i.e. marginalized, or SV's better word, "trivialized" it.
- 11. No objection to this (my original phrasing was "color subjective perceptions").
- 12. I don't see the point of the word "in."
- 13. All the sources which comment on this agree it is a dominant ideology. Nobody can seriously argue this, and Francione doesn't - in fact he argues that everybody already knows that it's a dominant ideology, and opposes using the word for that reason.
- I'm sorry if all this is a bit harsh but I didn't see much useful in these edits. For the most part changing all these picayune issues of phrasing just messes up the text and creates non-sequiturs without addressing any NPOV issues that might be there, because you're not actually changing the meaning. (By the way, this is why "unquestioned default" is back in the second sentence now. Somebody had rearranged the sentences so that a couple of them didn't quite fit together - there was a sentence that began with "this" and the referent of "this" was three sentences away - so I restored the original sentence order.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's more important to make the language as dispassionate as possible before wordsmithing for flow. I can see how you think changing words without changing facts is "picayune", but when multiple independent editors raise neutrality concerns we can't try to dismiss them, and at least two of the concerned (Rob and 217) thought I was on the right track. So I'll propose retweaks, trying to reconcile both of our rationales.
- 1 "Carnism accepts that…" (implication: this is the state of affairs, carnism has no prob, objected words gone)
- 2 "vegan social psychologist…" This I will argue for. Race is a permanent genetic/cultural attribute, but veganism is a choice and a stance. The situation is more like that of "white supremacist author Jared Taylor wrote 'when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears.'"
- 3 Meh, not a huge deal. "paradox" is qualified by "apparent" or "perceived" because some think it can be fully resolved and therefore isn't a paradox. I think "perceived" is blander, and my goal here is primarily to remove surprisingly forceful language only used by one party.
- 4 The version I proposed differentiates the classes of animals treated differently, making it sound less prima facie paradoxical. Could we combine to make "…who would otherwise oppose harming animals engage in behavior that requires food animals to be harmed"?
- 5 I agree it's inelegant, but since you agree it's synonymous and it was WP:Controversial let's leave the ugly version for now.
- 6 put "most of history, it was considered natural" first, after Plutarch "Beginning in the 17th century, the mainstream position was supported by…" It's just pushy-sounding to give the avowedly minority view the more prominent place.
- 7 "…wondering how 'the first man…ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived." It's a great quote, but long and graphic. This preserves the skeleton of his idea and some of his rhetoric while keeping his opinion within the bounds of the paragraph.
- 8 "conventional views" standardized by whom? I think "conventional" has a more accurate flavor of passivity.
- 9 "can produce negative emotions" sure, it's chilly enough like that. "
attemptas implying it's a difficult task. - 10 "marginalized" is a great objective word for "cramming into the edges". "Trivialized" was mine, actually.
- keep ===denial of animal mind=== change, then?
- 11 "influence" glad we agree
- 12 "in" localizes, clarifies that we're moving to a particular universe of discussion. Agree it's barely worth discussing.
- 13 "postulated" all the sources who accept it agree it's dominant, but some reject the whole concept, so the concept is one postulated by certain activists rather than universally agreed to exist. us v. them is not the point, even though the issue is controversial.
- Thanks for being willing to discuss so thoroughly! This kind of work is not much fun, but essential to crafting a careful consensus on a fiery topic. FourViolas (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. This is a little uglier, and the meaning is a little different. I'm not getting what the POV problem was supposed to be here. SlimVirgin's earlier objection to my own text also stands, and I think she was right: the sources indicate that this state of affairs is not consciously endorsed.
- 2. "Married heterosexual supreme court justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion." No. "Meat-eating ethologist Marian Dawkins wrote Why Animals Matter." No. We don't passively put labels on people in order to discredit them. Once again, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies to biased statements of opinion, and in that case the person's opinions should be mentioned, not her lifestyle choices or other affiliations. This sentence does not mention a biased statement of opinion: it says that she coined the term carnism, that's all. She did this in her capacity as an academic, just as Roberts wrote his dissent in his capacity as a judge. We don't add labels to suggest bias, whether we think people are biased or not.
- 3. Glad we could agree on this. (And multiple sources say this, by the way.)
- 4. That's not quite what the sources say. Loughnan2014 (review article) defines it as follows: "This reflects the “meat paradox”: Most people care about animals and do not want to see them harmed but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and, usually, to suffer (Herzog, 2010; Joy, 2010; Singer, 1975). Despite this suffering and premature death conflicting with peoples’ beliefs about how animals should be treated, most people continue to eat meat."
- 5. I disagree for aforementioned reasons, but I'll let this one go.
- 6. I think it should be kept chronological and with the more relevant idea at the top. It doesn't make sense to move from the 17th century to the first. Perhaps this would be less of a problem if the whole section were moved down to the end where it was initially; then we wouldn't be leading the article with Plutarch's position.
- 7. I'm against producing an original bowdlerization of a famous quote of Plutarch. Maybe it's the snob in me. But might the suggestion in 6 resolve this concern also?
- 8. This is really extremely minor, but if we said "conventional," we would have to say conventional when, because Singer's views are no longer unconventional in bioethics. This leads us to make another statement seemingly supporting the "anti-meat" position. Sticking with "orthodox," we can avoid that, because the connotations of that word are such that "orthodox" views stay orthodox for some time after they are superseded in popularity. You could change "orthodox" to "the then-conventional" if you want.
- 9. But we can't just say they're successful - the Piazza paper goes into how some people are and some aren't, to varying degrees.
- 10. I'd prefer to keep your word then; don't see what's wrong with it. You can change it to "marginalized" if you prefer that for whatever reason.
- 11. Good.
- 12. Really it doesn't matter right now. My thinking in omitting the "in" initially was that I have a couple academic sources that are about carnist v. vegan debates (which I have not yet included for NPOV reasons - they are not at all flattering to the carnists) and I was thinking of this section as meaning "discourse about veganism" rather than "discourse by vegans" although at present three sentences worth of the latter is all that's there.
- 13. I assume you are referring to Francione, who is the one and only person, as far as I'm aware, who could be said to dispute this idea. But he really only disputes the "invisible" part. Anyway, look at the context of this sentence; it clearly refers to how it's framed by certain vegans. That, combined with the fact that all the secondary sources agree on this, makes me think there is really not a need to complicate this statement. Besides, giving extra weight to Francione's views is hardly what those who think this article is POV are looking for.
- Thanks again for laying everything out so clearly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1 I don't see how "justify" is more passive than "accept". How about: "This belief system has different standards for appropriate treatment of food animals (such as cows and pigs in the West) and non-food animals (such as dogs).
- 2 This might need its own discussion. It's not about discrediting Joy; it's about making clear that the concept is discussed almost exclusively among vegans, which is essential to understanding the topic. Here's some OR, as permitted on talk pages: Desaulniers, Freeman, Perez (IV), Joy, Gibert, Gutjahr, Braunsberger, and DeMello are all vegans or animal-rights activists. That's every author' in the first column except for Rothgerber and Flamm, about whose personal life I found no info (and Rothgerber doesn't say "carnism"). That's strong evidence, if any is needed, that "carnism" is endemic to a relatively small, activist population, and we have to find a way of getting that info into the article.
- 3 Would you be okay with "perceived", then?
- 4 That's true, but he's a vegan citing three vegans (except Singer eats oysters). He and his sources reject the Carnist Distinction. The other source has a different defn, at least in the abstract, more about denying mind. Still, he's a (contested-neutrality) RS and we're not.
- 5 implemented, making my Strunkian grandmother roll in her grave
- 6 &7 Move to the bottom implemented. Plutarch is more relevant, that's true. How about leaving him first and complete (or less trimmed), but emphasizing his fringe status by following up with "However, his view has never gained widespread acceptance" with a citation to, say, a prevalence-of-vegetarianism study with a sentence on historical trends?Wait, I remembered a different idea I had for this. What if we cut the Plutarch to "…arguing that eating meat is unnatural and repulsive despite being considered normal, " and then putting the full quote right there in the reference? That way we can avoid bowdlerizing and put the notable early anti-carnist position first, but also dodge my objection, that giving the only blockquote to a graphic anti-carnist appeal is undue.
- 8 Singer's views are still unconventional in the livestock industry (an RS tradition we've been ignoring, although it avoids the question of carnism in favor of welfarism, if anything). He practically created bioethics, as a field of people who liked his ideas. This is probably too much fuss about "orthodox", which can stay if other people don't object.
- 9 I don't think "moderate" implies "fully extirpate", even though the latter is closer to true most of the time.
- 10 Changed to marginalized, sorry. It's not that I don't agree with "trivialize", but marginalize is dispassionate: "pushed to the edge", not "made smaller than deserved"
- 12 I put in "in", when we figure out how to include your sources without giving them undue weight we can switch back.
- 13 I guess I'm importing the argument about whether patriarchy exists (it does, of course, but anti-feminists deny it categorically to hijack debate). But you're right that context makes it clear we're describing what vegans say about it, so I'll assent to leaving out "postulated".
- It's nice to work these out one by one. Keep up the good discussion! FourViolas (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) edited 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. I don't see any reason to recast the whole sentence; you're removing the idea that this distinction is central to the theory. How about just changing "species" to "some species" to exempt the beetle-cruelty thing that you brought up?
- 2. In light of your excellent work, I'd like to find a source that makes clear that "carnism" is mainly used by animal rights advocates. I'm still opposed to passive labeling, and will be until we label every non-vegetarian who comments on an animal rights issue as "meat-eating so-and-so." I think in that perspective it's obvious how inappropriate this is. Also, I don't actually have a RS saying that Joy was vegan when she coined the term. I strongly suspect that she was, but all I have is a source in Spanish saying she gradually transitioned to veganism at some time, without specifying when. It's likely this was before 2001, but if not she certainly wouldn't be the first person who's views conflicted with her diet: Peter Singer wasn't a vegetarian until many years after he wrote Animal Liberation, and still is not a vegan. Again, in any case, mentioning people's diets is a bit off the point.
- 3. Sorry, I misread your last post and thought we agreed on that. I don't see a reason to change it, and per my original comment, since there's no equivocation in the sources we shouldn't introduce any in our text.
- 4. We can't create an original definition.
- 5. Condolences to your late grandmother.
- 6&7. That's a bit of OR. I don't really see the problem as the next sentence does emphasize what you said we should emphasize. "His view never gained widespread acceptance" is just wrong; he was hardly the only ancient vegetarian. We could expand on the Cartesian position, as I tried to do in my original rewrite, but part of it was removed.
- 8. I think "orthodox" is the most painless way to deal with this; it avoids getting us into another POV discussion.
- 9. "Moderate" isn't in the article now. I don't think the paper supports "fully expiate" at all; on the contrary it indicates most people still experience some discomfort.
- 10. That's fine.
- 12. Also fine, though I hope it's alright if change it when the section is expanded.
- 13. Good then.
- Thanks a lot for your hard work. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1 I still think "justifies" is loaded, and right at the beginning like that will set people en garde against POV. Could I change "which justifies treating them" to "and considering it acceptable to treat them"?
- 2 You're right that it's more important to explain that the term is mostly confined to the animal-advocate community than it is to pry into our authors' refrigerators. I've started a section below to handle that, since it's hard to find a RS outside that community which has bothered to note this.
- 3 I still think "apparent paradox" is stronger than most people would like, but you're right that no RS directly contests its paradoxicality. So I'll concede this one to WP:MAINSTREAM. Done
- 4 Loughnan likes characterizing it as some form of "How Are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?" or …love meat but . This formulation, "animals good meat also good" rather than "hurting animals bad hurting animals good", seems also to be the one more often repeated by scholars: , , . So what if we changed that sentence and the previous (half-redundant) one to
Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine the meat paradox, a phenomenon in which people oppose harming animals but nonetheless eat meat.
and source it to the better interview, Loughnan 2010 and one or two of the above non-Loughnan links? I would prefer that formulation of the MP because it's more RS popular and (or because) it's less pushy, and is more open to the possibility that people can find ways to resolve it—fallacious ways, perhaps, but ways. (Side note—we need to restructure the article to get the lead's cited info into the body and write a new, shorter, uncited, unchallengeably neutral lead per WP:LEAD.) - 6/7 I'm really attached to the idea of putting the quote in the ref, right there for people to float over, and summarizing the quote in less inflammatory or at least more concise language. As in "Plutarch, who in the first century CE defended the vegetarianism of Pythagoras and expressed revulsion for flesh-eating. Would you be willing to summarize the quote in a way you think is "directly supported" by Plutarch?
- 8 How about "popular views"? That's statistically unassailable, then and now.
- 9 Sorry, "mitigate". ("Moderate" is in the next sentence.) Rothgerber is discussing a lab situation where people are forced to consider the source of meat; I was noting that most people never even do that if they can help it. The point is that, one way or another, most non-vegans spend most of their lives not feeling guilty about their diets, and "attempt" insinuates they do.
- 10, 12, 13 Done
- Thanks for hanging in there! FourViolas (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1. Can you propose a wording that preserves the causal relationship implied by "justifies"?
- 2. I'll consider this specific issue closed now that you've stated the below discussion.
- 4. You're right that some sources phrase it this way, but if you look at where the sentence is placed in the article, we do too, and your formulation would remove the "paradox" part of the meat paradox, reducing clarity for those who don't make the connection. Also note that one of your sources - this one - is about a completely different "meat paradox", and the others refer to Loughnan's definition which is the one in our article, and do so in a way that makes the context clear. The source you listed that gives the most complete definition has "Reflecting on the “meat paradox”, Loughnan et al. (2014) note that most people find animal suffering emotionally disturbing and do not want to see animals harmed, but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and usually to suffer (Herzog, 2010; Joy, 2010; Singer, 1975)." This is pretty much exactly what we have in the article, plus a little embellishment about suffering.
- 6&7. This suggestion is a bit out of line with policy. WP:MOSQUOTE says "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that should not be expressed in Misplaced Pages's own voice..." and "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation." This quote is a perfect example of something that should be quoted directly, and this type of blockquote is more or less standard. See Atwater's quote in Southern strategy for an excellent example of use of a blockquote to present an important, but highly emotive (indeed, offensive) long statement. In both these cases (Plutarch and Atwater) the contents are emotional, and that's specifically the reason why a direct quotation should be used. It's not a reason to exclude them. Your suggestion to push the quote into a note is strange: notes are for exactly representing tangential things which might derail the main text. There is certainly no policy which says Misplaced Pages should fight against itself by including things and also hiding them from view. Either it's in the article or not, and I think it belongs.
- 8. Again, this begs a question: popular with whom? Philosophers? The public? I highly doubt anyone else will have a problem with "orthodox".
- 9. It's really not clear to me that any of the sources say this, though. I don't claim to know how often the average person thinks about where his meat came from.
- Thanks again and here's hoping we're almost done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- And a moment of self-indulgent whining: I'd be feeling friendlier if you had left the parts you agreed with up and specified your concerns here, per WP:ROWN, so I'll take a break for now so I can edit when I'm at my best. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to jump in late, but I've been dealing with an issue with a WikiProject I'm involved in. Hope I'm not too late to contribute something, especially given that I was one of the original "complainers".
- 1. I think the causal relationship is part of what makes "justifies" sound loaded. A causal relationship leads people to believe that carnists can only justify eating meat through some mental gymnastics, which isn't fully neutral. "Allows" preserves at least part of causality but isn't as strong.
- 4. I think it's clear in context that this definition is attributed to a specific source, and represents their thinking. I do not see a neutrality issue with the original phrasing.
- 6/7. However much I may personally dislike the way this quote presents these ideas, if there is a specific quote dating to the first century that acts as an origin to carnism, it belongs in the article.
- 8. This is not something to get into a major disagreement over, but I prefer "conventional". Orthodox has religious connotations which bring about ideas of righteousness to many people. Orthodox ideas also change, so it has the same problem of when as conventional. I don't see a reason to choose a term with potentially religious meaning over one without.
- 9. I'd suggest a simple alternative change here. Keep the original text and insert "may", to read as "This can produce negative emotions which meat-eaters may attempt to mitigate in a number of ways". This removes the sense of certainty that meat-eaters definitely confront this (not supported by sources) without making a claim that they don't regularly confront this (also not supported by sources).
- I'm about to go on a vacation, so this may be a hit-and-run contribution. I'll try to pop in at least once more before I go. ~ Rob 04:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks! I can endorse all of Rob's points. For 4, I've added a sentence so it doesn't just say "Plutarchism was opposed by Cartesianism, which was bunk."FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can agree with almost all of this. For 8, if you don't like "orthodox", can we say "then-conventional"?
- Contemporary convention is still to assign animals diminished moral status on the basis of their species. In context, we're discussing cultural conventions as much as academic trends. FourViolas (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think we're discussing academic trends - at least I was when I wrote that. And now we get into a lot of fine points - Singer didn't necessarily oppose discrimination on the basis of species, nor did Ryder; rather the notion was that animals are "on a continuum" that includes humans; also, they didn't oppose discrimination for reasons they did see as morally relevant. These kinds of views are not "unconventional" in academia anymore, as your NYT article from earlier on made clear (in fact, decried.) They are, however, still not the orthodox views. I don't necessarily mind using "conventional" but that point ought to be clarified or somehow avoided. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think "then-conventional" is clunky, but get your point. How about "prevalent"? That word makes clear that it's speaking about a specific time, and the "In the 1970s" that precedes it supplies which time. ~ Rob 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think we're discussing academic trends - at least I was when I wrote that. And now we get into a lot of fine points - Singer didn't necessarily oppose discrimination on the basis of species, nor did Ryder; rather the notion was that animals are "on a continuum" that includes humans; also, they didn't oppose discrimination for reasons they did see as morally relevant. These kinds of views are not "unconventional" in academia anymore, as your NYT article from earlier on made clear (in fact, decried.) They are, however, still not the orthodox views. I don't necessarily mind using "conventional" but that point ought to be clarified or somehow avoided. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Contemporary convention is still to assign animals diminished moral status on the basis of their species. In context, we're discussing cultural conventions as much as academic trends. FourViolas (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I can agree with almost all of this. For 8, if you don't like "orthodox", can we say "then-conventional"?
- Thanks! I can endorse all of Rob's points. For 4, I've added a sentence so it doesn't just say "Plutarchism was opposed by Cartesianism, which was bunk."FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Procedural note: Let's have this conversation in the RfC so it gets exposure to a wide variety of uninvolved editors. Splitting the discussion between two places is silly, and this will also help turn the RfC into something useful rather than a referendum on the current state of this article. ~ Rob 05:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, that RfC makes no sense, it's extremely vague, doesn't suggest any specific NPOV violations, and ties together two tangentially related articles. To split off the whole talk page discussion to another page would create undue disruption and stop us from getting anything done here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- The RfC asks a perfectly simple and straightforward question in a neutral way. There is an enormous discrepancy in style and content between two articles on closely related topics. There is no reason that one RfC should not deal with both. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Frankly, that RfC makes no sense, it's extremely vague, doesn't suggest any specific NPOV violations, and ties together two tangentially related articles. To split off the whole talk page discussion to another page would create undue disruption and stop us from getting anything done here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Plutarch, translated by W. Heinemann (1957). De esu carnium (On Eating Meat), Loeb Classical Library Ed., Vol. XII. Harvard University Press. p. 541. "Can you really ask what reason Pythagoras had for abstaining from flesh? For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of soul or mind the first man did so, touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, he who set forth tables of dead, stale bodies and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived."
Sourcing the term's use primarily among anti-carnists
As several people have noted, the term "carnism" is primarily used among those who oppose meat-eating, and is used for the purpose of criticizing it. As I noted above: Desaulniers, Freeman, Perez (IV), Joy, Gibert, Gutjahr, Braunsberger, and DeMello are all vegans or animal-rights advocates. That's every author in the first column except for Rothgerber and Flamm, about whose personal life I found no info. (As Sammy pointed out, those are mostly the sociologists, not the psychologists, and the psychologists might have a different profile. Still, it's notable info.) Without this fact we can't claim to give a fair picture of the idea of "carnism". However, it's tough to find a published source noting this fact. So in this section, let's try to find one.
This section fo Gibert might work:
Hence, it could be said that carnism is a descriptive concept with a normative import. By naming a psychological fact—the perception of meat and animal products depends on a pervasive ideology—the concept of carnism makes people aware of it and allows them to challenge their perceptions, and therefore move away from the violence in their lives that had before seemed inevitable.…Thus, the concept of carnism allows to change perspective. Beside the question “Why are some people vegan?” appears this new one “Why some people are not?”
Ideally, we'd have a secondary source observe this for us, but if we're careful and have consensus we could restate this ourselves, as something like Martin Gibert and Élise Desaulniers say the concept of carnism can be used as a tool to challenge the "violence" of animal exploitation."
That's pushing OR, though, and we still need a source noting that vegan discussion boards and partisan sociologists (and Hank Rothgerber) use the word a lot, while few other people do. FourViolas (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- As Rob suggested above, the natural place to do this would be the Vegan Discourse section, which needs expansion anyway. However doing it will be a delicate process and I hope you won't mind if I defer this question for a few days as I don't have the most time right now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- No problem, thank you! If people complain before then, some stuff might get BOLDly written in the meantime. FourViolas (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Gibert, Martin; Desaulniers, Élise (2014). "Carnism". Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Springer Netherlands. pp. 292–298. ISBN 978-94-007-0929-4.
{{cite book}}
: External link in
(help); Unknown parameter|chapterurl=
|chapterurl=
ignored (|chapter-url=
suggested) (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- I'm losing steam on this one. I just wasted over an hour searching all my engines for strings like "carnism 'the term is'", "carnist pejorative", "carnism 'used by'", and so on, and I realized I had hit the bottom of the barrel just now when I literally clicked this somethingawful forum, in which repugnant people are encouraged to troll Tumblr users identified by their use of the hashtag "#carnism", because it's apparently "exclusively used by horrible people. The people trolling those horrible people don't really use it. All the fat-acceptance tags, by comparison, are mostly trolls at this point, and most of the ones that aren't are boring." If that's what strikes me as a potentially useful source, it's time to throw in the towel. Anyone who can manage to find a source at this point will earn my surprised admiration. FourViolas (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
When you have a non-mainstream topic used primarily by a specific group, it is not our job to discover the truth of the term or phenomenon (WP:OR applies heavily). We simply report what is out there in the sources. If carnism is ever picked up by mainstream sources, we can adjust, but for now we just need to attribute a definition to a specific source and move on. It is completely fair to note in the lead and body that research on this idea has been conducted primarily by groups opposed to eating meat or certain treatments of animals related to eating meat. We shouldn't phrase this in a way that undermines carnism as an idea, but simply attribute it. Something like "Early research and inquiries on carnism were supported mostly by sociologists opposed to eating meat" is a factual statement that appears neutral to me. This could go late in the lead and probably also in the vegan discourse section in some form. Thoughts on side-stepping using the vegan definition this way? ~ Rob 03:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's precisely what I'd like to add, yes. The problem is that the only source we have for it is my OR at the beginning of this section. If everyone agrees that the info is important to an encyclopedia entry on carnism, and that your wording is good, we can add it per WP:IAR. FourViolas (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- A concept that shares many relevant similarities with this one is homophobia - a pejorative term coined by a psychologist to describe a dominant cultural norm, shared by the majority of people. The lede of that article doesn't mention that the term originated with psychologists who supported LGBT rights, though of course this is true. Likewise, everyone knows that patriarchy is a term primarily used by feminists, but it is likewise discussed as a concept, without mentioning who uses the concept until a body section on "feminist theory" - this is consistent with our article's "vegan discourse" section. I think placing this type of statement in the lede is a bit of a non-standard thing to do, and breaking the rules for it probably isn't justifiable. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think, in this case, its use is so restricted that it would be justified to point out its usage more prominently. However, my argument is still IAR, and without consensus that's out. So I would be fine with using the "in vegan discourse" section to clarify that "early research and discussion of carnism were primarily conducted by sociologists opposed to eating meat," and then someday adding something analogous to "Use of homophobia, homophobic, and homophobe has been criticized as pejorative against LGBT rights opponents." FourViolas (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- If we have a source for that, I'm not opposed to including it on this or any other day. Although I don't think the situation is any different from that at homophobia, which is a word almost exclusively used by pro-LGBT people, and about which it could equally be said "early research and discussion of homophobia were primarily conducted by psychologists in favor of LGBT rights." --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:44, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- By "someday" I meant after a pro-carnism RS makes the effort to rebut the term, as O'Donaghue and Caselles did "homophobia". FourViolas (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say it's WP:OR to say "Some of the early advocates of carnism were vegan (such as .....) or animal rights activists (such as .....) with references for each one. If you list specific people and use non-general language like "some", I'd say that each person's status as a vegan/animal rights activist is a specific sourceable fact, and it's not synthesis to simply list them. On the other hand, using more general language such as "most of the early advocates" or failing to list names is probably OR. ~ Rob 20:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I went ahead with "several sociologists and psychologists… and listed the four most-cited authors within our article for whom I could find a source. Rothgerber was among them, but interestingly not Loughnan, who occasionally makes carnist apologia when discussing his studies. FourViolas (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Images
I restored SlimVirgin's lead image as I think this is more relevant as an illustration of human behavior towards animals, which is what the article is about. I really don't care for the Gaegogi image at all, as it lacks illustrative value: it doesn't appear to be anything but a stew, so all of the information is in the caption, which makes it a bit of a useless image. I also am concerned that FourViolas explicitly chose it as the most "appetizing" image found at dog meat, which, while not a POV problem per se, is nevertheless not a valid criterion for picking an image. There are other images of dog meat which are, for one thing, clearly of dogs. I think the one in the Vietnamese market also illustrates an interesting cultural difference in the way meat is presented to consumers in Asia versus the West, and for this reason, combined with the fact that it clearly shows a dog and not just meat which for all I knew before reading the caption might have come from a platypus, I would have picked this one. Then there's the removal of the supermarket image; while 4V was right that this wasn't the most helpful image, as most readers will have seen the meat aisle of a supermarket, the "NPOV" reason for which it was removed concerns me. For the record, Martin has objected to literally every image at this article and veganism, including one of the sun, as being "promotional", and at list of vegans wanted to remove all the images because he found the fact that vegans have faces to be POV. I don't believe we should take these concerns seriously. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I removed the supermarket despite not understanding the objection because it is essential, when consensus-building, to concede the points you don't feel strongly about. I chose the least nightmare-inducing image (I was looking at commons:Category:Dog meat) because
- a) meat-eating is the topic, not butchering, and most discussion focuses on dinner-table dilemmas and emphasizes the fact that the violence is at a remove;
- b) choosing one of the other, gorier images felt WP:GRATUITOUS and tasteless, and because "look at that tasty…DOG MEAT!?" is already forceful;
- c) with MH already criticizing our imagery as too anti-carnism I didn't want to pick an image similar to those used by anti-meat campaigns; and
- d) (related to GRATUITOUS) I think WP is more credible when it feels less impassioned or inflammatory.
Even if you want to promote vegan views, you can't go very far towards the look or language of beyondcarnism.org before people will immediately dismiss the article as vegan propagandists hijacking WP, and that discredits WP and veganism at the same time.I take all good-faith concerns seriously, and I don't see evidence that MH is only here to disrupt the encyclopedia.- @DrChrissy: I know it's not very polite to "call in a debt" by asking one's thanker to chime in, but would you mind explaining why you approved of this particular switcheroo? FourViolas (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the boshintang may require a caption to make itself clear, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how pardoning turkeys was an illustration of endorsing meat culture until I hunted down and read through the linked article, which is one of the most clearly non-neutral we cite. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- For the record, I did not include the dog meat image or suggest doing so. All I said was that, if I had, I would not have chosen the very least informative image. WP:GRATUITOUS does not cover situations where there is a reason to favor one image; on the contrary, it conflicts with your view that graphic images should be avoided because they are graphic.
- I'll let the bit where you accused me of advocacy go because I don't have the time to answer it. However I'll note that other editors have expressed similar concerns that MH's behavior is disruptive, and his position on images of all kinds has been uniform. I can provide diffs to support this but I don't want to start litigating.
- I don't believe the dog meat image belongs as the lead image. It's likely to only make sense to someone who has read the article already, and there is no interesting content in the image itself. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just to clarify my position on the image further (since I hope that is what we are talking about) there are two points in WP:LEADIMAGE that I believe favor the turkey pardoning. One, it is (at least claimed as) a representation of the article topic, whereas the dog meat image is used to make a point about something relevant to the topic and discussed in the article, and two, per your own reasoning the dog meat image may be seen as shocking, which is something specifically to be avoided in lead images, though not elsewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, the boshintang may require a caption to make itself clear, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how pardoning turkeys was an illustration of endorsing meat culture until I hunted down and read through the linked article, which is one of the most clearly non-neutral we cite. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that a direct illustration of a meat-related culturally-dependent taboo was about as direct as one could get. There can be no literal depiction of a belief system, after all, and it's much more rapidly comprehensible. And as for shock, that's why I don't want the "dog on a stick :'(" image, and I think the pause occasioned by looking at dispassionately portrayed gaegogi is commensurate with that of seeing deportees lined up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 July 2015 FourViolas (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The dog meat image currently in the article is pretty great, in my opinion. It looks appetizing until you read the caption, which is exactly the sort of image that helps illustrate what "carnism" is all about. It forces people to think about the potential contradiction of the meat paradox; that's exactly what an article on the meat paradox/carnism should do. Having said that, I think that confrontation doesn't belong in the lead in the interests of retaining readers. How many American eaters of meat will click away if the first thing they see on this page is dog meat? Not to mention that there is a specific source that cites turkey pardoning as an example of carnism. As a side note, please remember to sign your posts. There have been a few unsigned posts in this discussion. ~ Rob 13:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)No, the dog meat was mine, and I was pretty pleased with it. I'm really surprised to hear that you think dogflesh is more difficult to connect to the topic than an obscure, jocular, US-specific politicking ritual; maybe someone else would care to chime in on this. I was citing GFFENSE to say that if it's quite possible to illustrate "meat taboos are culturally relative" without being graphic, we should do so. Also, my point a) stands.
- I very much didn't intend to accuse you, or Martin, of agenda-pushing, and I've struck my comment as I can see how my hypothetical could be misread. It's pretty apparent that this entire topic is a tinderbox, where productive discussions can be rapidly hijacked by POV accusations and counteraccusations, and I'm doing my best not to set off any such fuses. I apologize to all parties for any offense taken. FourViolas (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: Thank you for striking your comment. About the image, I think the highest representative of American public society engaged in a ritual endorsing meat-eating while simultaneously giving a symbolic nod to the idea of wanting to protect animals from harm is about the most perfect and comprehensive illustration of what is being called carnism that I could possibly hope for. I also think that this image is indeed shocking, because the likely reaction of many readers will be in your words, "look at that tasty…DOG MEAT!?" That seems like a pretty unambiguous typographical representation of shock. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: Happy to chime in. I was about to remove the turkey image myself before FourViolas beat me to it. My main reason for believing this is not an appropriate lead image is that it is so very, very US-centric. Sorry guys, but I suspect the rest of the world has virtually no idea what is going on here! So, we non-US citizens have to scurry away and do research about what "turkey pardoning" is before we even get to start thinking about what "carnism" means. The image also raises other distracting questions: Why is the picture of Bill Clinton doing the pardoning and not the current president - does this imply that Clinton believed in carnism whereas Obama does not? The turkey shown in the image is the highly inbred type that is eaten almost throughout the world, I don't know of a country where eating turkey is taboo - how does this illustrate "carnism". This is actually one of the few cases where I would rather see no lead image (as a last resort) than the turkey pardoning image.DrChrissy 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good point. If you don't know that Americans always eat turkey at Thanksgiving, let alone that the president has annually put on a little turkey-saving circus ever since Lincoln's son Tad apocryphally made friends with dinner, the image is even more confusing and doesn't carry much meaning even after you figure out what's supposed to be going on.
@Rob: Thanks for your comment. I have a feeling that the neutral-to-positive tone of the boshintang image will substantially deflect visceral revulsion in favor of a "wait, huh" response. - Would it be okay if I conducted an informal RfC by putting the stew first for now, and then asking a few friends:
We could work from there. The subjective value of images is notoriously hard to pin down once one is used to them. FourViolas (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)==Carnism image== Hi, we need a focus group's opinion. Could you tell me what your immediate reaction to the lead image and caption at Carnism is?
- If you're selecting the focus group, be careful to avoid WP:CANVASS. In particular, you'll need to be careful not to over-represent vegan voices in this conversation. But the question sounds good. ~ Rob 14:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I would avoid widening the discussion. There seem to be enough voices here. I've had a look at wikicommons and I'm suggesting some other potential lead images.
- If you're selecting the focus group, be careful to avoid WP:CANVASS. In particular, you'll need to be careful not to over-represent vegan voices in this conversation. But the question sounds good. ~ Rob 14:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, that's a good point. If you don't know that Americans always eat turkey at Thanksgiving, let alone that the president has annually put on a little turkey-saving circus ever since Lincoln's son Tad apocryphally made friends with dinner, the image is even more confusing and doesn't carry much meaning even after you figure out what's supposed to be going on.
- @FourViolas: Happy to chime in. I was about to remove the turkey image myself before FourViolas beat me to it. My main reason for believing this is not an appropriate lead image is that it is so very, very US-centric. Sorry guys, but I suspect the rest of the world has virtually no idea what is going on here! So, we non-US citizens have to scurry away and do research about what "turkey pardoning" is before we even get to start thinking about what "carnism" means. The image also raises other distracting questions: Why is the picture of Bill Clinton doing the pardoning and not the current president - does this imply that Clinton believed in carnism whereas Obama does not? The turkey shown in the image is the highly inbred type that is eaten almost throughout the world, I don't know of a country where eating turkey is taboo - how does this illustrate "carnism". This is actually one of the few cases where I would rather see no lead image (as a last resort) than the turkey pardoning image.DrChrissy 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: Thank you for striking your comment. About the image, I think the highest representative of American public society engaged in a ritual endorsing meat-eating while simultaneously giving a symbolic nod to the idea of wanting to protect animals from harm is about the most perfect and comprehensive illustration of what is being called carnism that I could possibly hope for. I also think that this image is indeed shocking, because the likely reaction of many readers will be in your words, "look at that tasty…DOG MEAT!?" That seems like a pretty unambiguous typographical representation of shock. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
DrChrissy 14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for the images leaking into the next thread. I can hat these when discussion has finished. I should also have saif the captions are my own words and are totally up for discussion.DrChrissy 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think any of these images really illustrate carnism. I don't see any connection to the meat paradox or the dichotomy between pet and food. While we should avoid a US-centric image if there is a high-quality international example, something that's US-centric is still preferable to something that has little connection to carnism at all. We can always update the caption on the turkey pardoning to better explain the significance. Something like "While it is traditional to eat turkey on Thanksgiving, the American president pardons a turkey each year at the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation." Readers from all backgrounds can understand the potential contradiction there, especially if we relocate the image to the body. Readers would then read about the meat paradox before looking at the image, and be able to understand the point being made. ~ Rob 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding these. This is a hard concept to illustrate. I agree that none are perfect, although #1 presents the dichotomy (but is old and not very visually interesting) and #6 has kind of a minimalist classiness. I actually wouldn't mind more voices, and the people I'm thinking of have never edited animal rights topics to my knowledge and have a good reputation for not disrupting consensus. Could I go ahead with my idea? FourViolas (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Rob13 But where is the paradox with the turkey image? Many cultures eat turkeys all year round and, as I indicated before, this is a highly inbred animal which would never be kept as a pet as they can hardly walk by the age of slaughter (only 16 to 22 weeks of age). I actually thought image 1 showed the paradox well. The man is eating one form of meat and his pet dogs (a meat which he wouldn't eat) are watching him. @ FourViolas please go ahead with your idea - mine was simply an opinion and not a very strong one at that.DrChrissy 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @FourViolas: I don't think that an RfC is necessary, as we already have multiple editors here and have been nitpicking every little issue in this article. About the images, I would go with 1, which illustrates the concept nicely, or 5, which is simple and straightforward, and at least shows a human interaction with the food, without the gross factor of the man messily eating. The turkey pardoning can go down to the position in the article where it is mentioned, since consensus seems to be against keeping it as the main image. @DrChrissy: About why Clinton was chosen, that was SV's pick, and while no matter which president were selected people could have raised similar questions, I think the decision to pick the president who was vegan for a time was particularly wise as it minimizes the potential for polemical interpretations. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I had no idea that Clinton was a vegan! Sorry, that subtlety was lost on me. How about another approach - We create our own multi-image. I've posted an example below.
- @FourViolas: I don't think that an RfC is necessary, as we already have multiple editors here and have been nitpicking every little issue in this article. About the images, I would go with 1, which illustrates the concept nicely, or 5, which is simple and straightforward, and at least shows a human interaction with the food, without the gross factor of the man messily eating. The turkey pardoning can go down to the position in the article where it is mentioned, since consensus seems to be against keeping it as the main image. @DrChrissy: About why Clinton was chosen, that was SV's pick, and while no matter which president were selected people could have raised similar questions, I think the decision to pick the president who was vegan for a time was particularly wise as it minimizes the potential for polemical interpretations. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)@Rob13 But where is the paradox with the turkey image? Many cultures eat turkeys all year round and, as I indicated before, this is a highly inbred animal which would never be kept as a pet as they can hardly walk by the age of slaughter (only 16 to 22 weeks of age). I actually thought image 1 showed the paradox well. The man is eating one form of meat and his pet dogs (a meat which he wouldn't eat) are watching him. @ FourViolas please go ahead with your idea - mine was simply an opinion and not a very strong one at that.DrChrissy 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for finding these. This is a hard concept to illustrate. I agree that none are perfect, although #1 presents the dichotomy (but is old and not very visually interesting) and #6 has kind of a minimalist classiness. I actually wouldn't mind more voices, and the people I'm thinking of have never edited animal rights topics to my knowledge and have a good reputation for not disrupting consensus. Could I go ahead with my idea? FourViolas (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think any of these images really illustrate carnism. I don't see any connection to the meat paradox or the dichotomy between pet and food. While we should avoid a US-centric image if there is a high-quality international example, something that's US-centric is still preferable to something that has little connection to carnism at all. We can always update the caption on the turkey pardoning to better explain the significance. Something like "While it is traditional to eat turkey on Thanksgiving, the American president pardons a turkey each year at the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation." Readers from all backgrounds can understand the potential contradiction there, especially if we relocate the image to the body. Readers would then read about the meat paradox before looking at the image, and be able to understand the point being made. ~ Rob 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- DrChrissy 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The turkey pardoning shows carnism by depicting a national event where we allow one animal to go "free" while mass-slaughtering and eating the exact same animal in a slightly different context. As for showing any images of cuts of meat, is that not somewhat inflammatory when paired with the image of dog meat? I think we need to be careful not to make a claim (direct or implied) that eating beef is the same as eating dog. ~ Rob 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a montage, like the one at Woman (but smaller). How about four plain images of beef, pork, dog, and horse, ready to eat, with one label at the bottom labeling them and stating that each is eaten in some cultures and taboo in others? FourViolas (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Will get started on it. @Rob, If there was a new belief that cheese should be a preferred food, would we use this image . It means a lot to people in the UK, but I suspect it means very little to people in the US.DrChrissy 16:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I could be persuaded on a collage of various prepared meats if the label indicates a region where each is eaten. I think that's the most neutral way to do it. Just throwing dog meat next to beef without the context that dog meat is eaten in certain parts of the world could feel to some people like a deliberate attack on meat-eating in general, even if it is not intended that way. The context should prevent that. ~ Rob 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- We could do that, but it might get complicated. Pork is eaten worldwide, but Jewish people around the world do not eat pork. Beef is the same for Hindus. Horse meat is not widely eaten in the UK, US, Australia but is eaten in France, Belgium and many other parts of the world. Dog meat is eaten in several countries, but do we list these individually in a caption? Are we over-thinking this?DrChrissy 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I could be persuaded on a collage of various prepared meats if the label indicates a region where each is eaten. I think that's the most neutral way to do it. Just throwing dog meat next to beef without the context that dog meat is eaten in certain parts of the world could feel to some people like a deliberate attack on meat-eating in general, even if it is not intended that way. The context should prevent that. ~ Rob 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Will get started on it. @Rob, If there was a new belief that cheese should be a preferred food, would we use this image . It means a lot to people in the UK, but I suspect it means very little to people in the US.DrChrissy 16:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a montage, like the one at Woman (but smaller). How about four plain images of beef, pork, dog, and horse, ready to eat, with one label at the bottom labeling them and stating that each is eaten in some cultures and taboo in others? FourViolas (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The turkey pardoning shows carnism by depicting a national event where we allow one animal to go "free" while mass-slaughtering and eating the exact same animal in a slightly different context. As for showing any images of cuts of meat, is that not somewhat inflammatory when paired with the image of dog meat? I think we need to be careful not to make a claim (direct or implied) that eating beef is the same as eating dog. ~ Rob 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- DrChrissy 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Listing a single country or region for each is fine (either that does eat it or doesn't). If we had pictures of pork, dog meat, beef, and live octopus (all prepared), the caption could be: "Pork (top left) is often not eaten by Jewish people. Dog meat (top right) is popular in China. Beef (bottom left) is commonly eaten in the United States. Live octopus (Is there a specific name for this?) is available in South Korea." Anything longer than that would be too much for a caption. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but my immediate thought as a meat-eater would be to click away if one of the first things I saw was dog meat and beef presented together without context. I'd expect a vegan attack on my choice to eat meat, and I'd peace out of there. Maybe that's irrational, but I don't think it's a response that's very far outside the normal. ~ Rob 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- If we were to write "Dog meat (top right) is popular in China", I would expect that to be challenged. It seems to be popular in some provinces but not others. Even if we write "Dog meat is eaten in China", I would expect people to say "But it is eaten in many other countries - why are you picking on China". It is for partly for this reason that I suggested some slightly tangential images such as the "Don't eat the swans". They might not get the whole message across (will any image?) but it will be remembered and this hopefully transfers to the article's subject.DrChrissy 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think anyone would object to the more vague (but equal in terms of context) "certain regions of Asia"? I don't see the point of removing an on-topic image that can be explained in a more thorough caption to replace it with an image that is only tangential. ~ Rob 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it would raise concerns because it is almost certainly eaten in places outside of Asia. I'm not entirely sure why geography is important here. This is about a belief system which can occur in any place around the world. We can explain geographical issues in the body of the article, but to try to get this over in the caption of the lead image is, I think, asking for too much.DrChrissy 21:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- My concern is that my US-centric instinct when I see dog meat placed next to beef, in the absence of the context that dog meat is eaten in many places, is to assume the author is making the claim: "Eating beef is like eating dog, and eating dog is disgusting. You are disgusting." Rational? Maybe not, but it is common for people to think defensively when the things they do are compared closely with things they perceive to be very negative. How about getting rid of specifics and going something like "Beef, dog meat, live octopus, and pork are all important parts of certain cultural cuisines." That removes specifics of geography, so should solve your concerns. My major issue is just making sure that the caption appropriately places the image in context. ~ Rob 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I like that caption. It introduces the concept that carnism can be brought into question by intercultural comparison, but does so extremely factually and gently enough that it wouldn't scare people off. FourViolas (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- My concern is that my US-centric instinct when I see dog meat placed next to beef, in the absence of the context that dog meat is eaten in many places, is to assume the author is making the claim: "Eating beef is like eating dog, and eating dog is disgusting. You are disgusting." Rational? Maybe not, but it is common for people to think defensively when the things they do are compared closely with things they perceive to be very negative. How about getting rid of specifics and going something like "Beef, dog meat, live octopus, and pork are all important parts of certain cultural cuisines." That removes specifics of geography, so should solve your concerns. My major issue is just making sure that the caption appropriately places the image in context. ~ Rob 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I think it would raise concerns because it is almost certainly eaten in places outside of Asia. I'm not entirely sure why geography is important here. This is about a belief system which can occur in any place around the world. We can explain geographical issues in the body of the article, but to try to get this over in the caption of the lead image is, I think, asking for too much.DrChrissy 21:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think anyone would object to the more vague (but equal in terms of context) "certain regions of Asia"? I don't see the point of removing an on-topic image that can be explained in a more thorough caption to replace it with an image that is only tangential. ~ Rob 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- If we were to write "Dog meat (top right) is popular in China", I would expect that to be challenged. It seems to be popular in some provinces but not others. Even if we write "Dog meat is eaten in China", I would expect people to say "But it is eaten in many other countries - why are you picking on China". It is for partly for this reason that I suggested some slightly tangential images such as the "Don't eat the swans". They might not get the whole message across (will any image?) but it will be remembered and this hopefully transfers to the article's subject.DrChrissy 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Tags
The POV and systemic bias tags were added by a relatively new editor in a drive-by fashion, and no concrete recommendations have been made. Barring any suggestion of what additional sources should be represented in the article, can these be removed? I also wonder about the wisdom of having a POV tag on the article while there is an open RfC specifically about whether the article meets the requirements of NPOV. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- The systemic bias tag can clearly go in the absence of additional sources, I think. I'd like to see the POV tag stay up temporarily, as it could bring more attention to the neutrality discussion going on at talk right now, with the understanding that it will be removed very soon when the current talk page discussion is over. ~ Rob 04:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't like the tags, but I think it would be less than impeccably correct to take down POV while complaints remain unaddressed. We have to respond to accusations of bad faith by Ghandianly demonstrating good conduct. Sysbi is unjustified until someone finds those missing invisible pro-carnist RS. FourViolas (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
"Unquestioned default"
User:Martin Hogbin and User:Lithopsian both objected specifically to "unquestioned default", saying that it unfairly implied the default ought to be questioned. As I explained above and in my edit summary, I agree with them, and the phrase is redundant next to "hegemony" and "invisible paradigm", which are both less rhetorically charged. I am restoring its removal. FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine. I'll restore "prevailing" then, which is supported by sources including Rothgerber2014, because this needs to be said. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that prevailing is a good replacement. It keeps the notion that this is a potentially widespread ideology without giving the impression that the readers are being instructed to question this. ~ Rob 13:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds good, Done with that FourViolas (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that prevailing is a good replacement. It keeps the notion that this is a potentially widespread ideology without giving the impression that the readers are being instructed to question this. ~ Rob 13:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not being too helpful!
It has been suggested that I should help build a consensus on this article. The problem is that the article is so obviously biased that I cannot get beyond the fist line. The word is a neologism invented with the specific purpose of attacking meat eaters. This is how I think that the article should start.
Carnism is a pejorative word invented by vegan and social psychologist Melanie Joy to describe meat eating. It was popularized by her 2009 book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 13:48, 16 July 2015
References
- Cite error: The named reference
Gibert2014
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Kool, V. K.; Agrawal, Rita (2009). "The Psychology of Nonkilling," in Joám Evans Pim (ed.), Toward a Nonkilling Paradigm, Center for Global Nonkilling, pp. 349–370. ISBN 978-0-9822983-1-2.
- Joy, Melanie (2011) . Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. Conari Press. ISBN 1573245054.
- I am a meat-eater and I do not take this article as an attack on me. It points out that I am a hypocrite. We are all hypocrites in one way or another. This is simply a fact of life. By the way - please sign your posts.DrChrissy 18:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- When a christian works on atheism and starts to view the concept as a personal attack, it is best not to work on that article. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- DrChrissy, not everyone thinks that you are a hypocrite. Some people think that there are good reasons for eating cows and not dogs. Also, the idea that eating something is cruelty is not shared by everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Timelezz, who said anything about personal attacks. Are you saying that Melanie Joy did not intend the term to be pejorative? It is li9ke calling people who do not believe a particular religion 'unbelievers' or 'infidels'; although those terms are perfectly correct they are not neutral terms, they are pejorative terms used to describe people who are outside religion. The whole article is written in the language of veg(etari)anism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Martin! Thanks for coming to help.
Your proposal is legitimate. For a claim like this, in which we ascribe a particular intentionality to those (including academics) who use this word—putting strong connotations in their mouths—we will need a very strong source. I searched Google Web, Books, and Scholar for "carnist pejorative" and "carnism derogatory" and similar, and I found many sources, but none has a chance of passing RS: I found urbandictionary and a vegan on YT to support your position, and reddit, tumblr, and a vegetarian blog (among others) to argue that the term isn't, or probably isn't, or at least shouldn't be intended to be, pejorative.
It might be more fruitful to look for a source to specify that the term is mostly used among vegans and vegetarians, and to allow readers of our article to make their own inferences from the fact that the label is rarely self-applied. We already have a section for that search, #Sourcing the term's use primarily among anti-carnists, above. FourViolas (talk) 21:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for trying to understand my point.
- There is no need for us to use the exact words in sources, in fact it is better for us to describe what the sources say in our own words. There is no doubt that Joy's book was critical of meat eating and it is fairly clear that she coined the term 'carnism' to reflect the views stated in her book. Even so I do not insist on using any particular word, just that this article (and Veganism) use language that properly reflects the status of their subjects. At the moment is is written using almost entirely from veg(etari)an sources. This would be like writing an article on Christianity using only quotes from the Bible (and there are plenty who would do that given the chance). The fact that there are very few neutral sources on the subject of carnism does not mean that we must bias the article towards supportive sources.
- Throughout the whole of human history the majority of people and cultures have eaten meat and considered this to be acceptable. This article therefore represents a minority opinion on the subject and we must make that clear, from the start. Perhaps you would like to suggest a way of doing that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may be conflating two different issues. The article doesn't say "you shouldn't eat meat" - if it did, it would be presenting a minority opinion. Rather, the article is about the idea that there is a culturally relative ideology underlying meat-eating. None of the sources cast doubt on this, so we're not justified in having our text do so. Your proposed version just confuses the issue, and is not supported by sources. Now, as for the point that the term has seen the most use among vegans or animal advocates, which FourViolas provided strong evidence of earlier, we're looking for a way to include this information, but we don't have a source that says this, exactly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- You say , 'the article is about the idea that there is a culturally relative ideology underlying meat-eating'. That is absolutely correct;the article is about an idea, of a minority group and it should read that way. The article actually reads in reverse, describing meat eating as carnism, which it calls a belief system, and presenting a minority group's opinions on meat eating as fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may be conflating two different issues. The article doesn't say "you shouldn't eat meat" - if it did, it would be presenting a minority opinion. Rather, the article is about the idea that there is a culturally relative ideology underlying meat-eating. None of the sources cast doubt on this, so we're not justified in having our text do so. Your proposed version just confuses the issue, and is not supported by sources. Now, as for the point that the term has seen the most use among vegans or animal advocates, which FourViolas provided strong evidence of earlier, we're looking for a way to include this information, but we don't have a source that says this, exactly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that we should tell readers who uses the word, once we have an RS to say it for us. See #Sourcing the term's use primarily among anti-carnists. Until an RS says that "carnism" doesn't exist, that it's a foolish concept describing what ought to be called "reg'lar eatin'," and that humans think about beef, eel, dog, rabbit, and lettuce in essentially identical ways, there is no justification for introducing doubt as to the existence of carnism. FourViolas (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Dear Martin Hogbin,
- it is not Misplaced Pages's intention to correct terms that are being used. If a word that is commonly used, could be interpreted as derogatory, Misplaced Pages still should not correct the literature, but has to follow the literature.
- I doubt whether it is derogatory. Carnism is just a contraction of carne (meat) and (ism). Do you have any reliable sources that show us that Melany Joy means a "pejorative word" by it, and had the "specific purpose of attacking meat eaters" when "inventing" the word? Without reliable sources to back that claim, it seems a point of view on your part. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you want a source to show that carnism is a derogatory term, how about Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows by Melanie Joy. The whole purpose of the book is to attack meat eating. Here is a quote from it : " way we as a society envision eating and animals is contradictory and insidious".
- Please do have a read that article as its style is much better than this one. Although it contains much of the same arguments and ideas as this article it properly attributes them to Joy, rather than presenting them in WP's voice. That is what I am complaining about here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Martin Hogbin Martin, if you have information like that, why not edit the article with it? If you provide a page number, I will insert it.DrChrissy 12:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- That article is a description of one book by one author, so naturally the ideas and assertions discussed are properly attributed to her. This article summarizes the consensus analysis of dozens of sociologists and psychologists, so we mustn't act like the "meat paradox" or "subconscious devaluation of food animals' sentience" are controversial ideas until other psychologists or sociologists say they are. That said, we should find consensus on some wording of "Joy wrote the book to challenge the 'contradictory and insidious' way society thinks about meat-eating," or more significantly and generally explain that many authors who discuss the term oppose the ideology (the task we're working on in #Sourcing the term's use primarily among anti-carnists). FourViolas (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Martin Hogbin: Controversial statements about meat-eating can be attributed to several of the authors who wrote about this subject; on the other hand, some of the sources, especially the research articles by Loughnan and Piazza, use neutral language and are not "attacking" anybody. Certainly we have no source saying anything like "carnism was invented to attack meat eaters" or that it is an offensive or questionable concept. I purposely didn't include any statements by Joy or others that you (having you in mind specifically) would regard as inflammatory, and I feel like this is sort of a catch-22: if I had included such statements, you would surely hold that up as an example of POV writing, whereas now you are complaining that they aren't there. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Collage images
I have created 2 draft collages as possible lead images. The first is of the meats only. To my mind, this might not be very helpful for the reader to understand the concept which is the meat paradox. So, I made a second one where the meat dish is placed next to the animal it came from. Both images are drafts and can be improved (e.g. I cut the horses head off!) Let's discuss.
DrChrissy 18:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Here's a counterproposal, labeled "3". It's dispassionate, extremely obvious, and avoids too-pushily breaking down the meat-animal barrier (per the article, doing so is prima facie anti-carnist). Since carnism is the culture of meat-eating, it's unambitious and logical to illustrate it with ready-to-eat meat. As with the Doctor's suggestions, it's wide open to countercounterproposal. FourViolas (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- My concern with both your collage and my first collage is that they simply show pieces of meat. These collages could easily be lead images for "carnivory" or something like that. However, what we are dealing with here is that there are inconsistencies in the way that cultures view animals as acceptable for eating or not. Classification as pets seems to be the most obvious inconsistency, but there are others such as religion and simple repugnancy (e.g. octopus or insects for many people in the West). I feel we need to get this central inconsistency over somehow in the lead image, but I feel that showing 4 lumps of meat which are not all that distinguishable from each other does not convey this inconsistency pictorially. Please note this is a criticism of my own suggestion also.DrChrissy 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's true, and I appreciate your willingness to self-criticize. However, I think we're mixing up carnism and the MP again. The lead image should illustrate the topic, not summarize the article. Carnism is simply the belief system of those who support meat-eating; the meat paradox is an interesting and very widely-discussed component of carnism, the part which points out that carnism is sometimes pretty weird. The article, appropriately, reflects the sources' emphasis on the MP, but I don't think it's a problem that the image is primarily about meat, not meat-related cognitive dissonance. I've tweaked my proposed caption from "Humans eat meat from various animals" so it now mentions something salient to carnist psychology, but is still utterly undeniable. FourViolas (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I see where you are coming from now! I was thinking that the word "certain" in the first sentence of the article was indicating that other animals were not considered as food. Would I be right in thinking then that "carnism" is equivalent to "human carnivory"?DrChrissy 23:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, you had it right the first time. Carnism is defined as the prevailing set of beliefs that support meat-eating; in the main this means the idea that certain animal species are food, but it doesn't extend to classifying all animals as food (in any culture, I think). One of the central ideas that was developed in the studies of the meat paradox was that the classification (which Joy held to be arbitrary) itself led people to perceive different animal species differently; e.g. viewing dogs as smarter than pigs, when in fact pigs have some cognitive abilities that dogs lack, such as the ability to recognize objects in a mirror. This was part of Joy's early theories, but the term "meat paradox" was coined later. So the meat paradox (inconsistency in people's thinking about animals) is held to be a feature of carnism. TL;DR: carnism is the set of ideas behind "human carnivory", which include the classification of animals as food or not. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, I see where you are coming from now! I was thinking that the word "certain" in the first sentence of the article was indicating that other animals were not considered as food. Would I be right in thinking then that "carnism" is equivalent to "human carnivory"?DrChrissy 23:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's true, and I appreciate your willingness to self-criticize. However, I think we're mixing up carnism and the MP again. The lead image should illustrate the topic, not summarize the article. Carnism is simply the belief system of those who support meat-eating; the meat paradox is an interesting and very widely-discussed component of carnism, the part which points out that carnism is sometimes pretty weird. The article, appropriately, reflects the sources' emphasis on the MP, but I don't think it's a problem that the image is primarily about meat, not meat-related cognitive dissonance. I've tweaked my proposed caption from "Humans eat meat from various animals" so it now mentions something salient to carnist psychology, but is still utterly undeniable. FourViolas (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- As I understand it, it's more like "the psychology and cultural traditions supporting meat". It's human carnivory along with its socio-psychological reasons and regulations. Sam collected the scholarly defns above, in #Definition is confused. That's why I think it makes sense to illustrate it with meat, and even more sense to do so while emphasizing the way people think about certain meats. It's really a thorny problem. FourViolas (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree, Sammy: carnism is the ideas behind meat (among which treating and thinking of dogs well and sows abominably is a notably weird and attentionworthy feature). Given that, do you endorse something along the lines of my proposed picture as illustrating a) meat, b) cultural relativity in food-species identification, and c) cultural relativity in respect/love-species identification? FourViolas (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the middle one. I'm still of the view that images of just meat are not very helpful, as most meat looks roughly the same, so I prefer the one showing the animals. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please remember that my RfC was about comparing this article with Veganism. I am not in any way proposing that we should include enticing pictures of meat. My point is that both articles should contain neutral pictures, the purpose of which is to elucidate the few readers that might not know what meat and vegan food look like, and maybe add a bit of visual interest to the page. We should not be promoting or discouraging anything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have strong feelings about the images and my preference, prior to the collages, would have been the black and white image 1 which minimizes any potential shock. Post-collage, I prefer images that show the animals. It's not likely to be productive to argue about how subjectively appealing the images of food are. The thing is, nobody snaps a photo of food and says "Hey! Everybody look at this not-very-appetizing, but also not-at-all-gross, entirely neutrally-presented dish!" If you insist that type of photograph, you won't have many options to choose from. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Sammy1339. Pre-collage Image 1 conveys the principle quite clearly once this is understood from the text. The middle collage showing the animals also does this. We could use images of the animals interacting with humans to perhaps make this clearer.DrChrissy 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let's go with 1, then. Images can be visceral, and the less dramahz the better. I'll put it in captioned "A man eating meat, watched by two pet dogs", and move Clinton down.
DrChrissy, I think your addition to the caption ("…which themselves would be considered as food in other cultures") is okay, but a little long and not completely necessary. People will get the idea that it's kind of odd to be eating one (dead, food) animal while looking at other (live, companion) animals, even if it doesn't occur to them that some people would be happy to eat the dogs too. What do others think? FourViolas (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- @User:Slimvirgin I had no idea the lead image had a story behind it! Great link!DrChrissy 15:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
See also section
One of the challenges that we've identified with the article is that it's very difficult to find RS that specifically address pro-carnist views. It is much easier to find RS that specifically addresses the pro-meat-eating stance in similar articles, though, and I believe linking to some of these articles (and from those articles to carnism) can help place this article within a larger neutral dialogue. I'd like to see a "See also" section with Ethics of eating meat at the bare minimum. I'm not terribly familiar with similar articles, so any suggestions on what else could go there would be appreciated. ~ Rob 18:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all with adding a "see also" section. However, some editors are strongly against these and argue if it is sufficiently related to the subject matter, it should be in the text and linked. Isn't Ethics of eating meat something that should be written into the text?DrChrissy 19:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I consider it more prominent to keep it in the "See also" section, which is preferable in this case. I'm likely disagreeing with consensus there, though. If someone were to boldly edit this link into the text in a way that makes sense, I wouldn't object. ~ Rob 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've boldly added an SA section, because I don't have a problem with it and I agree with your reasoning. Its links can, and probably should, be worked into the text sooner or later. Hope you aren't interrupting your vacation for this—relax, you've earned it! FourViolas (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I fly out to Florida tomorrow morning and I think I'm all packed, so I'm good to participate today. Thanks for the concern, though! ~ Rob 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- In the See Also section, do we need a couple of links to meat-animal production (farming) systems?DrChrissy 21:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I fly out to Florida tomorrow morning and I think I'm all packed, so I'm good to participate today. Thanks for the concern, though! ~ Rob 22:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've boldly added an SA section, because I don't have a problem with it and I agree with your reasoning. Its links can, and probably should, be worked into the text sooner or later. Hope you aren't interrupting your vacation for this—relax, you've earned it! FourViolas (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- I consider it more prominent to keep it in the "See also" section, which is preferable in this case. I'm likely disagreeing with consensus there, though. If someone were to boldly edit this link into the text in a way that makes sense, I wouldn't object. ~ Rob 21:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
More sources
Here are some good sources I just found: Ruby/Heine and Bilewicz et al.
We need to continue clarifying (as we just did in #Images) the difference between the meat paradox and carnism. I think we could mostly just move the two sentences on the MP down to the second paragraph of Attributes, replacing them with a summary per WP:LEDE, and tweak to emphasize that the MP is an especially thought- and research-provoking feature of carnism, the part where animals' perceived "humanity" (intelligence, sentience, cuddliness) conflicts with animal edibility. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
- Am I correct then in thinking carnism is an unquestioning classification of animals as "meat" or "non-meat" whereas the meat paradox occurs in people who have thought about various attributes of the animal and decided as a consequence either to eat, or not eat, that species of animal?DrChrissy 13:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not as I understand it.
- Carnism is the set of all the ways meat-eaters think about meat.
- Carnism treats some animals as meat and others not.
- When this seems illogical—when Westerners eat pigs who are smarter than their pet dogs, or when cultures arbitrarily disagree on which animals to eat—it's a paradox, called the "meat paradox".
- People resolve the meat paradox by telling themselves the animals they eat, which are already chosen for them by their culture, are dumber and less sensitive than the animals they love (also chosen by their culture).
- Does that make sense? FourViolas (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ah! I see now. Thanks.DrChrissy 17:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Removed text about pre-history of meat-eating.
The text added in the bottom section created a SYNTH, particularly in using the word "therefore" to make a false implication. Mind, it is incontrovertible that human carnivory is natural, and it seemed to be the purpose of this passage to affirm this. However, there are two problems. One is that the implication that this is the reason why eating meat has historically been viewed as natural is obviously wrong, as people were ignorant of these facts until relatively recently. Two, because of NPOV reasons, if we include arguments supporting the 4Ns, we should also include the counterarguments which are well supported by our sources. The particular relevant point here would be to point out the naturalistic fallacy. I'm in no way opposed to expanding the article in this way, and in fact there are good reasons to discuss the "naturality" of meat-eating in this context, especially to debunk complicated nonsense such as appears on the ethics of eating meat talk page. However this should be part of a neutral discussion of all the arguments, and given the way our sources lean, I've been reluctant to do that. I especially worry it will lead to bringing in other, weak sources which creates WP:OR problems, as happened a bit with the Hsiao paper and NYT essay contest. I also think this ought to be done in a different section, while this section should stay on point. There's really not much need to reiterate what everybody already knows: that meat has been eaten throughout history. On the other hand if other editors feel it's important to say this ahead of Plutarch, it probably wouldn't be too harmful. About Aristotle, I think its tangential and worry that including such things will lead to repeating all the information at ethics of eating meat and history of vegetarianism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think it makes sense to mention the origins of carnism before the origins of anti-carnism. FourViolas (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It does, but we'd need a source directly addressing that. The implication that carnism arose because humans naturally eat meat is OR. What we can say, in the absence of a source saying where carnism came from, is something like, "Eating of meat has been universal to nearly all cultures throughout history." I'm sure we can source such a statement - my only issue with it is that everybody knows this already, so it's just fluff. However if you think this helps for NPOV reasons, go ahead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's the kind of neutral-sounding fluff about whose absence people have been complaining. I'll get on it in a little while. FourViolas (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I feel strongly that there should be a statement about how long meat has been eaten for - not everybody does know this and it is obviously relevant. I take the point this could be seen as synth if we link it to "normal", so let's avoid making the link. By the way, perhaps this section should be called "History". Regarding Aristotle, I thought this made a nice time-line of the way humans categorise animals - maybe not as meat, but as "different".DrChrissy 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it might make a timeline of the way Greeks categorized animals but obviously that subject is extremely complicated in global perspective; furthermore Aristotle's views may or may not have been widely accepted in his time, I'm not sure. Many of his contemporaries were ethical vegetarians. But I really think all this is tangential.
- As above I have no problem with making clear that early humans ate meat, but since the only relevance of that fact to this article is to lend credence to the "first N", I think it's fair to then mention the naturalistic fallacy which is pointed out in several of our current sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the views of Aristotle are just as relevant to the article as des Cartes' which we discuss. Neither specifically mention meat eating (as far as I know), more a perceived difference between humans and other animals. I think the Aristotle info should be re-inserted along with sources you have regarding ethical vegetarianism in his time. This would be balanced, informative and relevant to the article.DrChrissy 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- My inclusion of Descartes' views was a little questionable, as they are not actually mentioned in the other sources. I committed this sin for two reasons: one, to give context to the subsequent section on "speciesism," and two, because so much of the body text was about de-mentalization of animals, I thought it relevant to mention that the people studied came from a culture where animals traditionally were completely de-mentalized. About including Aristotle's concepts of soul, and vegetarianism in ancient Greece, I can't see that there is any reason to do this. Why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals? What about all the intervening history? I'm not qualified to write this, and it's already been written elsewhere, at history of vegetarianism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the Cartesian point of view is important and should be retained. I just think it seems inconsistent to then not include Aristotle. They both would have been part of the lead up to thinking about speciesism. Who knows, perhaps Descartes developed his ideas based on Aristotle's. And you are correct, why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals? Is this article limited only to carnism in Western culture?DrChrissy 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's just that this leads us very far astray from the sources, doing a huge amount of original research. Maybe someday there will be a book called "Carnism in World History", but for now, our sources deal mainly with the present, and haven't commented on this. There's also the fact that I simply wouldn't know where to begin, and I'm neither willing nor able to tackle this huge problem. If someone did this, it might make a new article, something like "historical conceptions of animals," which this article could then have a stub-section about with a "main article" link. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- So do we get rid of both Aristotle and Descartes?DrChrissy 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to keep Descartes, I won't object; if you want to remove it, I also won't object. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- So do we get rid of both Aristotle and Descartes?DrChrissy 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's just that this leads us very far astray from the sources, doing a huge amount of original research. Maybe someday there will be a book called "Carnism in World History", but for now, our sources deal mainly with the present, and haven't commented on this. There's also the fact that I simply wouldn't know where to begin, and I'm neither willing nor able to tackle this huge problem. If someone did this, it might make a new article, something like "historical conceptions of animals," which this article could then have a stub-section about with a "main article" link. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the Cartesian point of view is important and should be retained. I just think it seems inconsistent to then not include Aristotle. They both would have been part of the lead up to thinking about speciesism. Who knows, perhaps Descartes developed his ideas based on Aristotle's. And you are correct, why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals? Is this article limited only to carnism in Western culture?DrChrissy 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- My inclusion of Descartes' views was a little questionable, as they are not actually mentioned in the other sources. I committed this sin for two reasons: one, to give context to the subsequent section on "speciesism," and two, because so much of the body text was about de-mentalization of animals, I thought it relevant to mention that the people studied came from a culture where animals traditionally were completely de-mentalized. About including Aristotle's concepts of soul, and vegetarianism in ancient Greece, I can't see that there is any reason to do this. Why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals? What about all the intervening history? I'm not qualified to write this, and it's already been written elsewhere, at history of vegetarianism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think the views of Aristotle are just as relevant to the article as des Cartes' which we discuss. Neither specifically mention meat eating (as far as I know), more a perceived difference between humans and other animals. I think the Aristotle info should be re-inserted along with sources you have regarding ethical vegetarianism in his time. This would be balanced, informative and relevant to the article.DrChrissy 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- I feel strongly that there should be a statement about how long meat has been eaten for - not everybody does know this and it is obviously relevant. I take the point this could be seen as synth if we link it to "normal", so let's avoid making the link. By the way, perhaps this section should be called "History". Regarding Aristotle, I thought this made a nice time-line of the way humans categorise animals - maybe not as meat, but as "different".DrChrissy 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, but it's the kind of neutral-sounding fluff about whose absence people have been complaining. I'll get on it in a little while. FourViolas (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- It does, but we'd need a source directly addressing that. The implication that carnism arose because humans naturally eat meat is OR. What we can say, in the absence of a source saying where carnism came from, is something like, "Eating of meat has been universal to nearly all cultures throughout history." I'm sure we can source such a statement - my only issue with it is that everybody knows this already, so it's just fluff. However if you think this helps for NPOV reasons, go ahead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Gallery image
Opening a discussion about the gallery image I recently inserted. First, I have noted that I accidentally used the same image of dog meat as used in the first section - one of them needs to go, which one? Second, I think the gallery image should be at the top of the article rather than at the bottom.DrChrissy 20:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @DrChrissy:This gallery is fine on my laptop but doesn't come out right on my desktop: the third image goes into another row. It's also a little strange that it shows meat in inconsistent stages of preparation, and that one of the images is repeated from the images above. Do you mind if I swap it out for the multi-image you created? --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- The moving image within a gallery is doing what it is supposed to - I think to accommodate different screen/device sizes. The "different stages" is a tricky one. There is only one image of horse meat that I can find, so I don't believe there are other options Unless we move to a different meat). What stage would people prefer to see? I am also mindful of shock images. In my own opinion, I would be quite happy to show images of hanging cooked dogs because I believe we should not sanitise such issues, but I believe other editors on this article would not approve ( I am respecting different sensitivities). By the way, on the Dog meat article there is an interesting image of a cooked dog hanging next to a cooked chicken. I have been waiting for someone to object to the image saying it is "objectionable" so that I can ask them whether it is the dog or the chicken which is objectionable. To my mind, it is the perfect image to illustrate speciesism. Sammy, please use the multi-image back if you wish.DrChrissy 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'll do that soon - just tried including the collage image and couldn't get it to look right. We also need a better horse image; I'll try fixing it up. To the other point though, there's no policy-based argument against including ugly images, except as a leading image. I'd rather have the image from the Hanoi market for several reasons I mentioned before, or the dog and chicken. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The moving image within a gallery is doing what it is supposed to - I think to accommodate different screen/device sizes. The "different stages" is a tricky one. There is only one image of horse meat that I can find, so I don't believe there are other options Unless we move to a different meat). What stage would people prefer to see? I am also mindful of shock images. In my own opinion, I would be quite happy to show images of hanging cooked dogs because I believe we should not sanitise such issues, but I believe other editors on this article would not approve ( I am respecting different sensitivities). By the way, on the Dog meat article there is an interesting image of a cooked dog hanging next to a cooked chicken. I have been waiting for someone to object to the image saying it is "objectionable" so that I can ask them whether it is the dog or the chicken which is objectionable. To my mind, it is the perfect image to illustrate speciesism. Sammy, please use the multi-image back if you wish.DrChrissy 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Sammy, I am still not entirely sure which image you are talking about. I am going to have to recreate any of the collages as when I created them earlier, I did not have the correct attributions - I only ever intended them as drafts. Is the collage the one containing 8 images - meat on the left, animal on the right? If it is, should we get images on the right which include humans interacting with the animal? Perhaps even interacting with them as pets? I'm not exactly sure where you want to use this collage or what message you are trying to convey.DrChrissy 18:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The dog/chicken image is good because it shows what most in the West regard as acceptable next to the unacceptable, so that's on-topic. But is it a chicken? I'd have said a goose. Sarah 16:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will insert the image and call it "poultry" - I too was not 100% it was a chicken but we in the West are used to seeing huge birds selected for massive and rapid growth. The bird in the image might have just been scratching around in someone's yard.DrChrissy 17:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding it. "Poultry" is safer. It was more the shape that made me think it's not a chicken (particularly the head and neck), but I'm not sure. Sarah 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was going by the shape of beak, possible comb on the head and the lack of webbed feet. Anyway - "poultry" covers all possibilities. Nice image of the walking pig by the way!DrChrissy 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Per anti-ethnocentrism (if I may be so bold as to assume y'all are mostly Western) it would be nice, in the long term, to find a combination which almost everyone would consider partly acceptable and partly unacceptable, such as beef+eel+pork, or something. But that's not a big deal for now, as even most canivores know dog meat is a charged topic. FourViolas (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was going by the shape of beak, possible comb on the head and the lack of webbed feet. Anyway - "poultry" covers all possibilities. Nice image of the walking pig by the way!DrChrissy 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for adding it. "Poultry" is safer. It was more the shape that made me think it's not a chicken (particularly the head and neck), but I'm not sure. Sarah 17:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will insert the image and call it "poultry" - I too was not 100% it was a chicken but we in the West are used to seeing huge birds selected for massive and rapid growth. The bird in the image might have just been scratching around in someone's yard.DrChrissy 17:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The dog/chicken image is good because it shows what most in the West regard as acceptable next to the unacceptable, so that's on-topic. But is it a chicken? I'd have said a goose. Sarah 16:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Infrahumanization
Many of our sources use the term "infrahumanization" to describe the process of thinking about human-used animals as less "intelligent, rational, sensitive, mature, lingual, refined, civil, and moral" (from Bilewicz). It's a good term, and very relevant to the topic, so I was thinking of replacing my much-too-long Carnism#Denial of animal mind or capacity for suffering section title. On the other hand, it's a long and confusing word, and highly technical. On the other other hand, it's Latinate, which in English corresponds to dispassionate-sounding, and passion (POV) is an issue which has been repeatedly raised in general. What do y'all think? FourViolas (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- hmmmmmm...I like the word (it's new to me) but my own opinion is that it is a little too technical. If you don't like the current heading, what about "Denial of animal suffering". Suffering can occur without animals having theory of mind.DrChrissy 20:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good idea, but both lowered estimates of suffering and lowered estimates of cognition are discussed. Do you think it makes sense to split the section? FourViolas (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Rozin
Hi FourViolas, the Rozin paragraph in this section should ideally come first. The research referred to in the next paragraph took place after Rozin's call for more research, and according to another source because he called for it. Sarah 05:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I completely agree it's logical to cite the pioneer before those who responded to his work, but I think it creates a problem with due weight in the article as a whole. Most sources on carnism never mention Rozin or "moralization", and giving him a paragraph at the beginning of "Attributes of Carnism" is confusing.
- Here's an idea (fully subject to reversion and further discussion): because the idea of "carnism" as an ideology wasn't developed and popularized until after Rozin's papers on omnivory, I'll put your paragraph at the end of the "earlier ideas" section. That makes sense to me, at least, because he was an influential and notable predecessor to contemporary research on carnism proper. FourViolas (talk) 13:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I like the Rozin section and agree it might be better placed in the "Earlier ideas" section.DrChrissy 13:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The problem with the article is that it lacks narrative flow, and I think moving that has made it worse, so I hope no one minds if I move it back. Joy coined the term carnism, but she wasn't the first to write about these ideas, and Rozin is a major figure in food psychology. Sarah 14:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I agree it lacks narrative flow which was partly the reason why I introduced Aristotle earlier, but there did not seem to be much support for this.DrChrissy 14:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a significant academic literature about the psychology of meat-eating that can be tapped into, and then the flow will suggest itself. But it's a mistake to stick to sources that use the word carnism, because this isn't an article about a word, and it would mean you'd have no sources before 2001. FourViolas, I'm in the process of adding more Rozin and restoring the order in which he was first added, so I'll have to revert your latest edit when I put that in. Sarah 14:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, strike that, I'll try to work it in. Sarah 14:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Take your time, I'll keep my hands off for a while. As long as we have a rock-solid defn of carnism which allows us to include "meat psych" more generally, that's great. Thanks! FourViolas (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I combined the "Earlier ideas" sections into one background section. This is followed by "Attributes of carnism," which begins with Rozin calling for more research, discusses ambivalence, missing link between animals and food, etc, and ends with Joy's definition of the term carnism.
Then comes the "Cognitive dissonance" section, which is now one section, rather than split up. Whether that's the best heading I don't know, but the previous version split up ideas that were closely linked, so I feel they're better combined, unless the section gets a lot longer.
I'm unsure about the "Vegan discourse" section and what function it has; I would say merge this into the rest of the article. I also swapped Clinton for Obama, and moved the image to where we discuss pardoning turkeys. Sarah 15:43, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I combined the "Earlier ideas" sections into one background section. This is followed by "Attributes of carnism," which begins with Rozin calling for more research, discusses ambivalence, missing link between animals and food, etc, and ends with Joy's definition of the term carnism.
We should have a section on the meat paradox, which is central to this. Sarah 16:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Some more changes: I tightened the lead; changed some headings, including Background to History; moved the Four Ns higher; added an image of a cow in India to juxtapose it with the dog stew; split the cognitive dissonance section in three and called it Dissonance reduction; added a sub-section on "saved from slaughter" narratives, and moved the turkey image into it; and did some general copy-editing. Sarah 19:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- More: Removed some "me too" sources; added footnotes describing the meat paradox; added refs; added schemata (did this today or yesterday); rmvd that some of the early researchers were vegan because it looked odd, and as written it wasn't correct (true of Joy, but of the others mentioned one wrote one paper about turkey pardoning, and one co-wrote a tertiary source – most of the people writing about this haven't said whether they're meat-eaters, vegetarians or vegans).
- Removed from vegan discourse section that "vegans may argue that carnism is based on the objectification of animals," etc, because all the sources argue this, not only vegans; added a "meat paradox" section and made the cognitive-dissonance material sub-sections of it; did some general copy-editing; rmvd the dog-meat image from the gallery because it's in the article. Sarah 16:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to reinstate the sentence on the anti-carnism of early researchers. There was strong consensus for it, and it was the only remaining hint that describing meat culture as "carnism" is almost exclusively done among vegans and animal-rights advocates. Writing an article on "carnism" that implies the term is in general use is tantamount to disinformation.
- I'd like to see the section on ascription of limited mental capacity given more prominence, as it's based on multiply corroborated, objective, falsifiable experiments, while much of the rest of the article is non-mainstream sociology.
- Precisely because the term is often used in open propaganda (I'm using the word nonjudgementally, in the Upton Sinclair sense), I'd like the images, especially, to be beyond suspicion of being manipulative or even suggestive. The "dog on a stick :'(" image in particular I find unjustified, because it combines two quite rare features of the local variety of carnism—selling recognizable carcasses, and eating dog—in a way which many people around the world (including the photographer) find shocking rather than thought-provoking. I strongly urge us to find images which most readers will consider dispassionate.
- Other than that, thanks for your efforts, SV! You've been putting in many hours on this, found great sources, and written great prose. FourViolas (talk) 21:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Several vegans
FourViolas, about restoring this, I see what you're trying to do, but it looks odd. What early research did Carrie Packwood-Freeman conduct? I'm aware of one 2012 article on the turkey pardoning, and she's neither a psychologist nor sociologist. Joy, yes. If Hank Rothgerber conducted early research on it (do you have examples?), and is a vegan and a psychologist or sociologist, that makes two. Most people writing about this haven't discussed their own diets, and if we're going to single out one group, it raises the question as to whether we have to single out meat-eaters too. Sarah 21:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I picked researchers sloppily, pretty much on the basis of how often we ourselves cited them. Rothgerber's work has been heavily cited (btw, he's looked into many aspects of carnism, including pet ownership, masculinity, and vegan-vegetarian-carnist relations, and we should work him in more), and I was being self-consciously non-recentist by defining the first decade or so of any field to be "early", even if that period is ongoing. Gibert/Desaulniers have also been widely referenced, and are also vegan (gibert in french, desaulniers in french); I'd still like to work in their "normative import" (see #Sourcing the term's use primarily among anti-carnists, because it's true and relevant: most people who talk about carnism do so with the intention of working against it, and the only way we can make a fair article in light of that is by allowing an RS (indeed, one which encourages this use of "carnism") say it. Piazza is a vegan, too , and an influential voice in carnism studies.
- On the other hand, Brock is "not a vegetarian" ( 2:30), and neither is Rozin ("likes all foods"). Loughnan probably eats meat too (Once you start watching people (including yourself!) eat meat…). Are you listening, btw, User:Martin Hogbin? Those three are the core of the psychological research into, and definition of, the meat paradox and attendant moral dissonance. Here is an essay by Brock about the psychological, moral, and cultural features of carnism; we have peer-reviewed sources saying the same things, but I thought you might want to hear an omnivore scholar articulate them.
- Anyway, I'm going to add Piazza as an early vegan scholar, remove Packwood-Freeman as not a formative voice in the field, and incorporate G/D's assertion that the concept of carnism can be utilized against the system of carnism. I will optimistically pretend to myself that that will put an end to objections that the article fails to attribute its ideas properly. For fairness, and for the sake of the article's broader credibility, I think it would be great to find a way to point out that important research on the meat paradox and other aspects of carnism has been conducted by psychologists who are themselves carnists. FourViolas (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)