User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

When consensus is very obvious, anyone can close a RfC

See: WP:ANRFC. Nonetheless, I'm going to request a closure there. Banedon (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Consensus according to WP policy is not so obvious but I support your suggestion so long as the request is completely neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

My proposed wording, 'Requested, uninvolved, disinterested admin to close this RfC' was entirely neutral; yours was not, as it asked for consensus to be assessed and made no mention of WP policy. I have asked for a uninvolved, disinterested admin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Martin, are you absolutely sure you need an admin to close this? I am a NAC that has closed over 200 RFC's. AlbinoFerret 20:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer. I am not sure that I need an admin but I do need someone who understands the core principles of WP:RS and WP:V. After a discussion with one editor I am beginning to wonder if people are misunderstanding what I want to say, because to me it should not be particularly controversial. It might therefore be better to leave the discussion open for a while longer in the hopes that we can reach an (unexpected) agreement.

Would you be willing to help ensure that we are, in fact, all arguing about the same thing and not talking to cross purposes? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Question

Hi, in your post to the "billion vs million" debate, you selected "option 1", but your comments indicate that you actually appear to support "option 2". In case there is a typo there, would you mind reviewing your post and confirming/clarifying your choice? Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 02:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Cure for cancer!

We absolutely cannot have, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for cancer and asthma'. Editors here may well know that a vegan diet does not cure asthma and cancer but there are vulneralble people out there who are taken in by medical frauds such as this and who, as a result, do not try to get proper treatment and may possibly die as a result.

It is pretty obvious that the diet was not proposed literally as a bogus cure but we must make clear that it is just that. I will try alternative wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, these edits of yours [1][2][3] are an example of the issue described in the section above. The sentence describes a view from 1815. It's perfectly clear what is meant, but to be even clearer I've rewritten the sentence and added an academic source. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I put this here by mistake. Can we please keep discussion of veganism to the relevant talk page. I have replied there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, this isn't about veganism, because it happens elsewhere too. At some point people are going to start collecting diffs with a view to asking that you be topic-banned from environmental/green issues.

I understand that when people arrive at articles, they may know nothing about a topic. This is Wikipedia; we all do it. But the onus is on editors to educate themselves. The issue with your editing is that you expect other people to read the sources and tell you what they say and mean (and even then it seems to have no effect). Perhaps you underestimate how time-consuming it is; it just isn't reasonable to ask other people to do that work for you. Please bear in mind that we are all volunteers. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop making these threats. I do not in any way expect others to do any work for me. We simply disagree on many things; that is not a reason to threaten to get me topic banned. I am not a lone tendentious editor either. At the moment several other editors have questioned the accuracy and neutrality of the Veganism article. You can easily see who they are but I can give you their names if you wish.

There are probably sufficient comments on this page alone to justify accusations of incivility, and page ownership and bullying by some editors but I do not believe that that is the best way forwards.

On several occasions you have called me ignorant and referred to a case where I objected to wording saying that 'dairy cows are kept pregnant'. I politely backed down on this point because I do not claim to be an expert on the subject and did not want to create further ill feeling. This does not mean that I was completely wrong or worthy of being called ignorant. As I understand it, the precise pregnancy scheme for dairy cows varies from place to place, culture to culture, and breed to breed. Lactation is not the only reason that cattle are made/allowed to be pregnant either. It creates new cattle and is is hardly an unnatural thing. In nature there are usually plenty of bulls fighting for the chance to mate with the cows at every opportunity.

I would be happy to continue this discussion with you if you wish, or we can just leave it if you prefer but please do not use it as an excuse for calling me names. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How to deal with content disputes

There are ways to deal with content disputes which I am sure we all know. They are:

Assume good faith. I have no agenda other than maiking WP a reliable, verifiable, neutral, and authoritative encyclopdia. We disagree on how to do that and need to discuss it more but I can only ask you to accept that this is my only motive here. I have nothing at all against vegitarianism or veganism but WP is not a medium for promoting those views. At present, I believe that several articles on the subject are overly promotional because of the language they use, the selective way in which they use reliable sources, and the lack of criticism. My edits are aimed at resolving this problem that some other editors have spotted.

You will see a civil and productive discussion which I am currently involved with on the talk page. Let us stick to that.

Attack the content not the editor is a core WP policy. If you do not like my edits challenge what I write do not make threats or call me names.

WP:BRD I do not think any of us has stuck rigidly to BRD but we have all avoided persistent edit warring. In my latest edits I have stuck to BRD and intend to try to keep it that way. There is no requirement for anyone to discuss edits before making them or to stick to the party line in their edits. Please note that 'discuss' does not cover things like 'go away, it has all been decided' or 'stop being disruptive' or no response.

No matter how much time and effort an editor or group of editors have put into a page they do not own the page. It can always be improved and the wording or neutrality of the regular editors challenged.

An RfC is the preferred mechanism for dealing with otherwise unresolvable content disputes. It brings in thoughts from new users. We have one now, in which I have stated my case. We may have some more if we cannot resolve matters by discussion with current editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Cows on a small farm in the South of England.

In the Veganism article we have, 'To obtain milk from dairy cattle, cows are made pregnant to induce lactation; they are kept pregnant and lactating for three to seven years, then slaughtered. Female calves are separated from their mothers within 24 hours of birth, and fed milk replacer to retain the cow's milk for human consumption. Male calves are slaughtered at birth, sent for veal production, or reared for beef'.

I have some information from a reliable source, a husband and wife who run a small farm in the South of Englend, on how cows are kept on this farm. Of course this is not a WP:RS but I have no doubt that we could find one somewhere to support what they say. On the other hand I am not suggesting that we add this information to a WP article so I do not need a WP:RS.

Both male and female calves are not removed from their mothers but are not allowed to suckle from their mothers after 72 hour from birth however, they are kept close to their mothers for several months. They are fed cow's milk. The farm has never slaughtered male calves at birth. Some years on the farm male calves are avoided by using Artificial insemination with sexed semen but when this is not done the male calves are reared for rose veal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Taking the next step

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Rose (talk) 04:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

A better next step would be to continue civil discussion of our disagreements over content on the article talk page. I look forward to discussing our disagreement there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

If you deliberately disrupt Wikipedia as you did here, I will request your topic ban from the subject. You know perfectly well that your edit was unacceptable. Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make ridiculous threats to me. The change to the article that was originally made by another user was made in good faith and seemed perfectly reasonable to me yet it was immediately reverted with a rather threatening edit comment. I reverted the revert because to use the definition of veganism used by the The Vegan Society would seem logical and neutral. I cannot see that using their definition represents undue weight any more than using a definition synthesised from a number of sources selected by editors here. I edited once and have not since edit warred. The basic principle of Wikipedia is that of cooperative editing, which can be done by any editor acting in good faith. My edit was a good faith attempt to support an improvement to the article. No article is ever finally settled and improvements must always be considered posible.

Now, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page wher discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty, I have rarely seen you improve an article. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not sound much like civil discussion of why you regard the wording used in the GA version of this article as giving undue weight to one view. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Please start a new discussion on the article talk page about your viewpoint. You know this, yet over and over again you refuse to do the right thing. Do not copy over my user talk warning again. Viriditas (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to second this. I can provide numerous examples of your disruptive, tendentious behavior on vegetarian, environmental, and "green" topics generally. AGF is not a suicide pact. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin: I'm sorry to agree that, while we were all working on Carnism, I usually shared your position about what changes were needed—but thought your comments often impeded constructive collaboration. It's crucial not to give the impression of having a WP:Battleground mindset. FourViolas (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

None of you has to agree with me but I would appreciate it if you would make your points by discussion of the article content on the article talk pages rather than by atacking me personally or making absurd and offensive threats here. I started by supporting a change made in good faith by another editor to one article and by suggesting some changes to another on its talk page. If you think I am wrong tell me why on the article talk pages. I look forward to discusing article content with you all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

You say you showed up out of the blue to revert to a version edited by a sleeper account which spent the last three years silent and unused, only to show up out of the blue and edit the article on Veganism. I wouldn't think this is such a big deal except that being unusually prone to pattern recognition, I seem to recall several sleeper or new accounts showing up out of the blue on many other articles and topics only to be followed by you reverting to their version. I hope I'm misremembering the past and this is not true. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a thinly veiled accusation of some form of misconduct by me. If you think I have done something wrong then take it to the proper forum. I do not really care what you do or do not remember but I would like you to stick to discussion of content rather than atacking editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I think you should not indulge Martin and Zippy268's efforts at provocation for the time being. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again, please talk about content, not editors.

You may find it hard to believe but there are people who have different opinions from you. It seems that there are now several editors who disagree with the synthesis that we currently have in the lead of veganism. Discussing possible change is not provocation but how WP works. Please remember, nobody owns the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Gaslighting. Discussion of the putative issues appears at Talk:Veganism and is hardly relevant to the present subject. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another attack. I am not twisting anything I just do not see the world from a vegan perspective. Neither do most other people. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

So you are also alleging bias, just to be clear. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I am saying that the article uses vegan language, which is wrong. There are vegan sources that say 'animals have commodity status'. Most people would do not use this language to describe the way that humans treat animals. We should use terminology used by the majority of people not the terminology of the subjects of the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, this isn't just about veganism; there have been similar issues at other articles. It is our responsibility to educate ourselves about issues if we want to write about them on Wikipedia. Please see WP:COMPETENCE. To be active at an article where one has strong views but no knowledge, then to park oneself there for months or even years, isn't respectful of other people's time. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I sincerely hope that this 'is' about veganism, or are you just criticising me as a person.

I would hope that you would know that Wikipedia is not written by self-appointed subject experts but by anyone who wants to produce an encyclopedia. An important part of editing here is knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like and the diferrence between that and a promotional or POV pushing article. Simply by using vegan rhetoric in the lead the article pushes a POV.

I do not 'park myself' anywhere I edit articles and discuss the contents with other editors. Please can we stick to discussing article content. This should be based on what reliable sources actually say and not on editors' personal synthesis of selected primary sources. The question we are addressing is, 'What is a vegan?'. To answer that question we do not use our personal opinions based on the beliefs of a selected vegan minority but look for quality NPOV sources that actually say, 'A vegan is...'.

You will note that recently two other editors have suggested that we use the wording of a major vegan organisation which does make a clear statement saying, 'Veganism is...'. This statement was used in the lead of the article when it was a GA; which it is no longer. If you think that is not a good general statement of what veganism is the find a better one, do not just make one up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I posted on your talk page because this isn't about that article. There were similar problems at BP, and others have mentioned other articles. The problem is the combination of strong views and not much information. That's common, but we have a responsibility to educate ourselves.

There is some good advice in Wikipedia:Maintaining a friendly space. It encourages us to ask ourselves: "Have I made sure to educate myself before asking others to explain things to me?" If we would all do that, it would make discussion more fruitful. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The only 'problem' on the BP article was a content dispute involving many editors of different opinions. I am not sure on what basis you presume to judge my knowledge or my need for education; it seems to be just that I disagree with you. I do not want or need advice from you about how to edit Wikipedia. Can we now please get back to discussion article content on the article talk page and leave the insults out; that would make things a lot more friendly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, you've asked several times that other editors find non-vegan sources for you that use the term "commodity status of animals." Several have been offered; some have been added to the footnote. You've never acknowledged their existence, but have continued to ask for sources as though none have been offered. So recently I posted another one, with quotes.

The article is by a law professor at Pace University School of Law who specializes in property law, and who has nothing to do with veganism so far as I can tell:

David N. Cassuto, "Owning What You Eat: The Discourse of Food," in J. Ronald Engel, et al. (ed.), Democracy, Ecological Integrity and International Law, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009 (emphasis added):

p. 313: "the ultimate reality of the animals' commodity status inevitably imbued that bond [between farmers and animals] with a sense of unreality," and

p. 314: "It was impossible to escape the animals' commodity status even as ethics demanded their decent treatment."

(This is just one example; there are many more such sources.) I've asked you twice on talk to acknowledge having seen this, but you haven't responded. It's a lot of work to type these examples up for you on talk or in footnotes, so acknowledging that you have at least seen them would be helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:21, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My challege was to show that the phrase was in common usage by non vegan sources not that of using the power of Google to find the odd use in the vastness of the internet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Then why not look for yourself? You can search for "animals as commodities," "animals as property," "animals commodity status," etc. Look in Google Books, Google Scholar, JSTOR. You'll find all kinds of scholarly work. If there's an article you can't access, you can ask another editor to send it to you. You could also go to a good library and find more.

When someone types something up for you, particularly when you've requested a source, it is simple politeness to thank them or at least acknowledge it. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Keeping your head when all about you

As you know, I don't agree with your position about that definition and, per WP:1AM#When you think the consensus is local I don't think the RfC will go your way because you haven't provided RS to support your position. Nonetheless, I respect your choice to open it. The dispute resolution process is the right way to resolve disputes (I'm looking forward to settling this), and I admire you for keeping cool and content-focused while a lot of exasperated editors are drifting into discussions of your conduct. FourViolas (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I hope that by opening this question up to a wider audience, that is to say to include people who are not vegans or animal rights proponents, we may get a different result but we shall see. If the RfC goes against me then so be it; I will have to accept the result.

I am puzzled by your position though. In my opinion, there are many reasons not to use this terminology in the lead but one seems to me to be uncontrovertible and I would like to at least make sure that you understand it. It is the matter of the meaning of 'commodity status'. Betty Logan, an experienced and respected editor of several vegan and vegetarian article said that she was not sure what it meant.

A couple of editors have insisted (I can show you the diffs if you want) that it means literally just capable of being bought or sold or capable of legal ownership. The example of this I gave was that of a pheasant flying over my garden. I believe, in UK law, while it is over my land it is legally my property (I may be wrong about the law but that does not matter. I am trying demonstrate the concept of just legal ownership). I agree that this is indeed one possible meaning of the phrase 'commodity status'. Do you agree?

From the bird's perspective this legal ownership is of no consequence whatever. It does not know about my land and has no concept of what 'legal ownership' might mean. From an animal rights perspective this legal ownership does not, of itself, do the bird any harm at all. It is free to fly on to its intended location and carry on with its natural and free life. Although there might, to some ethical vegans, still be a important principle involved, the actual influence on the animal must be almost the most benign of any possible human influence imaginable. Would you agree there? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your point is quite fair: only a dogmatic vegan would think that animals' commodity status is somehow objectionable per se. As far as I can tell, you're right that most vegans are motivated to be vegan for simpler reasons: they think animal suffering is morally bad, or that we should respect the intrinsic value of an animal's life, or something.

But these principles are inadequate to define vegan philosophy, because they're shared by millions of non-vegans—just ask any RSPCA member or vegetarian. So the problem is to find a position shared by all vegan philosophies, but extreme enough to be generally rejected by non-vegans. The point of the philosophy sources I quoted, and of the sources in the current definition's footnote, is to show the first part: as SV put it, it would be "shocking" to find an ethical vegan who did not object to the commodity status of animals, even in the sense you seem to consider unobjectionable. The second part is supposed to be obvious from the fact that non-vegans (by defn) purchase animal products, and therefore are apparently okay with buying and selling animals.

Without intending offense to anyone, the point can be clarified by looking at opposition to human slavery. Such opposition is characterized by the belief that humans should not be owned, bought and sold. But slavery opponents don't really think the main problem with slavery is the fact that there exists a piece of paper in a bank saying that person X owns person Y; the problem is that the slave can be abused, forced to do things against their will, etc. Nonetheless, the abolitionists' target is the whole institution of people-owning, not just the reform of whipping practices.

An abolitionist would object to the idea that someone could become my property just by wandering onto my land (even if I never did anything to them); apparently, an ethical vegan would object to the system which allows you to temporarily own an itinerant pheasant, as well. I'm not saying it's rational, but the justification would be that such a system makes it inherently impossible to treat animals the way vegans think we should; this is what Francione's paper is all about. FourViolas (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

My point is simply that one possible meaning of 'commodity status' can be expressed as 'legal ownership'. Do you agree with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes; and I'm trying to say that Francione and many other pro-vegan philosophers object to that, innocuous as it may seem. Technically, the definition is a bit more specific: 'legal ownership with the possibility of being bought and sold'. Some philosophers, like Favre, object to the second and not necessarily the first. FourViolas (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You are actually addressing a different issue which I will come back to.

'Commodity status' could also mean, 'treated in the same way as a normal commodity. Meaning, taking them to be, 'an entity with no capacity for legal rights' meaning that 'We are allowed to impose any suffering required to use our animal propertry for a particular purpose even if that purpose is our mere amusement or pleasure'. This meaning is described in the sources that you kindly provided, and no doubt, in many more. In other words we are entitled to treat animals in any cruel or inhumane way without regards for the health or feelings of the animal. This meaning includes the worst possible way in which we could treat animals. Do you agree that this is also a possible meaning of 'commodity status'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, vegans think that follows as a consequence of commodity status. As my professor summarized Francione's argument: 'as long as animals are our property, we ask "is this animal's suffering necessary for my experiment?" "is this animal's suffering necessary for my food?" rather than "is this animal's suffering necessary for some important human interest?" ' This imbalance is supposed to invalidate the 'Humane Treatment Principle', that we must not impose unnecessary suffering on animals, because we can just redefine 'necessary' to suit our convenience.

But the idea that commodity status precludes humane treatment is a thesis, an argument which vegans have to defend with a lot of evidence and explanation, not a trivial consequence of the definition. Again, this was an issue in slavery debates: there were many (otherwise) intelligent people who argued that slaves' status as objects of trade was perfectly compatible with their best interests, maybe even better for them than freedom. (I'm not trying to compare anti-vegans to defenders of slavery, just pointing out that "commodity" does not necessarily imply "legitimate target of cruelty".) So I think you've accurately described the reason vegans oppose the commodity status or "tradeability" of animals, but I don't think it's right to say that calling animals "commodities" is the same as claiming they may be abused at will. FourViolas (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be responding to an argumant that I am not making. I am quite sure some vegans at least do think 'that [cruelty] follows as a consequence of commodity status' But that is not what I am asking. I am asking how the term 'commodity status' might reasonably be interepreted by a person who may well not be an expert in vegan philosophy. In normal use a commodity refers to commonly traded substances including raw materials, like copper and iron, and to commonly manufactured and used items. My dictionary defines commodity as 'an article of commerce - from the Latin commoditas meaning "suitability" or "benefit" '. Such items are without doubt 'an entity with no capacity for legal rights'. There is no expectation that we should have regards to the rights, feelings, or welfare of copper when we make it into wire because it is presumed to have none. There is a body of opinion (often religious) that animals do exist purely for the benefit of humans and that any treatment whatsoever that benefits humans is acceptable. Whether you or I or vegans accept this is irrelevant; there are people who do hold this view and therefore might take 'commodity status to mean that we can treat animals as we like. Do you not agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I really don't think so; that is, I don't think it's logically justified to note that animals have commodity status by being (as your dictionary defines the term) 'articles of commerce', and then conclude that they are 'entities with no capacity for legal rights', who deserve no more moral standing than copper. This is getting fiddly, but even if owning animals as property necessarily permitted cruelty to them, it wouldn't follow that this situation was right. Someone who had heard complaints about the commodification of women or commodification of nature might start anticipating the argument that commodification entails cruelty, but the conclusion is not foregone.

I suppose it's possible for someone who endorsed Genesis 1:26 and 9:1-2 to use animals' status as 'articles of commerce' to try to prove directly that 'any treatment [of animals] whatsoever that benefits humans is acceptable', but only (it seems) by invoking the just-world hypothesis, that the current state of things must be right. Many people—Hilary Bok, for example—believe commodity status is compatible with treating animals in all the ways we should. FourViolas (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

FV, my understanding of Bok is that she argues we need not do what we are allowed to do. But the property status is still something she regards as unfortunate (as I recall). SarahSV ^(talk) 01:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, you may be right; I've only read Keeping Pets. She writes, as you say, that it's fine to keep pets if one doesn't treat them badly (although one has the legal right to), and only opposes legal statuses under which "nonhuman animals have no legal standing and no recourse in the face of abuse or neglect". It's not clear if she'd endorse something like Favre's proposal, under which animals are technically property, but it seems plausible: "An [ideal] legal system governing the status of nonhuman animals will presumably give humans some measure of control over them." FourViolas (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FourViolas, I believe Favre is talking more about guardianship, so you would be responsible for an animal as you would for a human child. The problem with property is that you can do what you want with it. You can transfer ownership, and decide to let it live or die. I recently checked euthanasia laws in various countries to make sure that I was right about that, and I found a blog from a vet discussing how certain people have their dogs euthanized before going on holiday, because it's cheaper to do that and buy a new one, than it is to pay boarding fees. So that's the reality. Of course, it's an extreme, but the point is that it's permitted.

So the question is whether people who care about these issues ought to keep pets, or whether doing so lends support to an abusive system. Bok's argument (as I recall it) is that it's okay to keep pets because not everyone does what they're allowed to do. I find this to be a very weak argument, so I should probably read it again because I may be over-simplifying. (It's not that I don't like companion animals; I mean only that the argument is not a good one.) SarahSV ^(talk) 03:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

She restricts her scope to the case of a caring pet owner, writing:

Boycotting the institution of pet ownership would not in any way undermine it, since it does not rely on the existence of pet owners for support....The problem with our present system is not that it requires that we do things that are wrong, but that it gives us rights over nonhuman animals that we arguably ought not to have. Fortunately, this system does not force us to exercise these rights. We can, and should, treat our pets in just the same way that we would if the laws governing nonhuman animals were exactly as they should be....if someone who wants to take a dog into her home allows the law to describe her as “owning” that dog, but does not allow this fact either to affect her treatment of her dog or to perpetuate that legal system, it is hard to see how her action harms her pet in any way.

So, it's okay for you, dear responsible reader, to keep pets while you fight to eliminate the undesirable aspects of their existing property status. I don't think it's an especially powerful argument, but it seems to do its modest job. Sorry, Martin, for FORUMing up your talk page. FourViolas (talk) 03:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, 'entities with no capacity for legal rights' comes directly from one of your references for defining 'commodity status' so this is clearly considered to be one way in which animal rights philosophers understand the property/commodity status of animals.

At the other end of the spectrum it is widely considered by many religions that animals do not have souls like humans and, although many religious texts preach kindness to animals, there are plenty of people who think that this gives them the freedom to treat animals as they wish. Similarly some scientists deny animals the capacity for human feelings.

Judaism and Islam at least, clearly endorse the killing of animals for food and other purposes as they give clear rules on what animals may be eaten and how they should be slaughtered. This goes far beyond what is acceptable to all vegans.

There is clearly a whole spectrum of opinion on the way that animals should be treated, from the most extreme ethical vegans to those who belive that animals exist purely for our convenience, with the majority being somewher in the middle. You surely cannot be asserting that all these people understand 'commodity status' to refer to just legal ownership?

It did not even occur to me, who probably fall near the centre of the range of opinions on the matter, that 'commodity status' could possibly mean just 'legal ownership' and I cannot belive that I am unique in that. In fact I am sure that I am in the majority. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, if you own something you're allowed to transfer ownership; that is part of the definition of property. So when something is commodified (becomes a commodity), it's about that entity's property status and that it can be an object of trade. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand your point. It sounds like you're saying, 'animals have long been treated as though they have little moral importance, and animals are commodities; therefore "commodity status" implies "low moral status"'. That seems to be backwards: the reason people are okay with buying and selling animals is because they think it's all right to treat animals however we want. They are not necessarily 'understanding "commodity status" to refer to [more than] just legal ownership' in order to justify their treatment of animals; that comes from (e.g.) 'let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth', not from 'commodity'.

But I think this is more detail than we need to cover, and certainly more than reliable sources give. The point here is much simpler: ethical vegans refrain from buying animal products for philosophical reasons. This establishes immediately that vegan philosophy has a major problem with animals-as-objects-of-trade. Furthermore, non-vegans do not have philosophical reasons to refrain from buying animal products (in general). Therefore the philosophical objection to animals as commodities is characteristic of vegans. With respect, I don't think there's anything more to wring from OR speculation about subjective connotations. FourViolas (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be arguing about a point that I am not making.

I am not making any point about ethical or any other kind of vegan. I am simply saying that many ordinary people will not understand what the term the term 'commodity status' is intended to mean. From your point of view, as someone who studies the philosophy of veganism it may seem quite obvious but to the majority of the population it could mean something completely different. Look at what SageRad said that he thought it meant [my bold], 'My understanding is that "commodification" means not simply the reduction of living things to a property that can be bought and sold, but also a psychological shift in the mind of the people doing it, to viewing the living beings as objects to be used for their use-value without consideration of the feelings of the living thing. I think that is the meaning of commodification in this context. It includes, but goes beyond, the way living beings are bought and sold' He clearly did not understand 'commodity status' to means just something that can be bought and sold.

Betty Logan said, ' In truth I don't really know what "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" actually means'. That is two people who do not understand the phrase 'commodity status' to have the meaning that you intend it to have. What percentage of our readers do you think will know that 'commodity status' is intended to mean literally just, 'legal ownership'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please, just ask any of your friends, who are not particularly interested in animal rights or veganism, the question,' What do you think the words, "animals have commodity status" mean. No prompting, just ask them that question and get then to write an answer of one or two sentences. I very much doubt that they will all say, 'it just means that we can buy and sell animals'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's understood that we don't sell persons. Commodity status, however defined, is obviously going to be incompatible with certain rights, such as the right to free movement: no use buying something that can just wander off. That's enough to get across the idea of why vegans reject it. Is it a perfect definition of all vegan ideologies? No, and it can't be, because there are too many. Readers who want to understand the term better can read the nice article SlimVirgin wrote up, and readers interested in the general debate can read ethics of eating meat.

But the only real unifying feature of all vegan ideologies is that they're not okay with animals being bought and sold, or with animals being treated as if their only value is their market value. Whatever connotations "commodity" has, they're perfectly acceptable to the community of people who work with commodities and those who work with animals, so it's not our job to second-guess them. FourViolas (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be completely missing my point. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia. It is purpose is to disseminate knowledge to people in general. Most people who use WP are probably not vegans and they are not editors of articles, they are the readers, who are reading WP to find out some information.

When someone wants to know what a vegetarianism is they go to vegetarianism and they read, 'Vegetarianism is the practice of abstaining from the consumption of meat (red meat, poultry, seafood and the flesh of any other animal), and may also include abstention from by-products of animal slaughter'. A simple overall description of vegetarianism, in plain language. More details are given in the body.

When someone wants to know what veganism is they go to veganism and they read, 'Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'. The first bit is fine but how do they know what 'an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals' means? We presume that they are not familiar with veganism or its associated philosophies. Depending on their own beliefs and background, they could take it to mean anything from 'all vegans object to the legal ownership of animals' to 'vegans object to the treatment of animals as objects, with people being able to do whatever they want to them'. We surely do not expect them to read up on vegan philosophy themselves to find out the answer. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition is RS-supported. If people want to understand more about why vegans have a problem with the commodity status of animals, they can read the footnote or the linked article. If people want to learn more about vegan philosophy, they can read Veganism#Philosophy. If people want a definition and discussion of veganism in Simple English, they can go to simple:veganism, which exists for exactly that purpose. FourViolas (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not doubt that there are RS to support for the wording but we are writing an encyclopedia, which is intended to give information to our readers. The problem is not that readers will not understand 'why vegans have a problem with the commodity status of animals', the problem is that they will have no idea at all what 'commodity status of animals' means. I am not sure how I can express this more simply. The primary purpose, in fact the only purpose, of Wikipedia is to give information to our readers, in language that they can understand. The veganism article falls at the first hurdle in this respect. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we have reached the point where we at least understand where our difference of opinion lies. I want to write an encyclopedia to inform people. By people I mean ordinary people just like you and me, not simpletons or people with learning or comprehension difficulties. I think it should be written in language that they can understand immediately, without their having to go to another encyclopedia or other source.

I am not quite sure what you want to do, but it is clearly something else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you’re a little off, because of course I think I’m here to build an encyclopedia too. I think we should do so according to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:MAINSTREAM: we summarize what the most reliable sources say, using their terminology when no obvious alternative exists.

You, unlike me, want to impose subjective criteria on top of those: you seem to think that every involved editor needs to agree that our articles are subjectively accessible, useful, “neutral” (by personal opinion, not WEIGHT of RS) etc. Of course I think that would be nice too, but I think we have to resolve disputes by following policy, not by repeating our opinions more and more insistently.

simple:, whose editors and readers would certainly not appreciate being called “simpletons”, is the project which has WP:FORKed from en.wp according to the principle that ease of understanding should trump precise reflection of sources. If you believe in that principle, you’re apparently on the wrong project. FourViolas (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Do we agree on this?

Before I comment on how the lead in WP should be worded can I just check that we do agree on one thing, which is that the term, 'commodity status' is capable of being understood by readers with no specialist knowledge and without additional reading, to mean anything from 'legal ownership' to 'we can do what we like to animals'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm done re-re-discussing this. FourViolas (talk) 12:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have agreed above that the meaning of the term 'Commodity status' is unclear to our readers. I cannot see why you cannot confirm that with a simple 'yes'. In intractable disputes progress can only be made by finding points of agreement, which I thought we had done. If we cannot even agree on what we agree on then you are right, we can make no further progress with this discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Veganism

Just to state I dont object to the reversion, but its only going to end badly you know. For what its worth I think the phrase 'commodity status of animals' is ridiculous and shouldnt be in the lead of an encyclopedia article, however the fact is policy trumps guidelines, and the MOS and various other style guidelines which would indicate a different wording are heavily outweighed by the duty to reflect the reliable sources on it. Of which there are a lot. Dragging out an RFC which has a foregone conclusion (at best you will get a 'no consensus' result which means the status quo continues) - it should be clear from the talkpage the opposition to your position, and no matter how widely advertised, RFC's rarely get the sort of participation which would swing it that far in the other direction. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I do not think it is decided yet. It is fairly close at the moment and i will try to advertise the RfC to get a wider audience.

I fail to understand why you think that WP guidlines support the current wording. The most obvious is WP:Lead, which says, 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents', and 'the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view'.

I have never found out exactly what 'commodity status of animals means' despite the protestations of some editors. At one extreme it could just mean that humans can buy and sell animals and at times it has been strongly implied by those who want to keep this wording that that this is the intended meaning. On the other hand, it could be taken to mean that humans treat animals like any other commodity and can do whatever they like to them without regard to the animal's feelings, health, or welfare. It is hard to see how WP users will know what meaning is intended. So, rather than being, 'a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view' it is actually written in incoprehensible language of a minority group.

If we do take 'commodity status' to mean just that animals can be bought and sold then the wording only applies to a small section of vegans, ethical vegans, so the sentence is not 'a summary of its most important contents' but a descriptyion of a specialy selected part of the contents.

Of course, the term 'commodity status' can be found in animal rights and vegan sources, just as the terms like 'evil bosses' and 'capitalist pigs' appear in left wing writing but we would not use them in WP because the words themselves express a clear POV The term 'commodity status' has no well defined meaning and is not in general usage.

I am not sure what WP policies you think support having incomprehensible POV rhetoric in the first line of the lead but I would be interested to know. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Coriolis force

Thanks for working on this article. I did not realize that it was written with British English and that "anticlockwise" was an equivalent word, which is why I reverted that change; otherwise, I would have left it as it was. Donner60 (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem. I went back and looked how the article started. It contained the British spelling 'travelling' rather than the US 'traveling' so, in accordance with WP:Engvar, I consolidated BE in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

This is clearly canvassing. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] One has already arrived to support you, and has made it clear by his comment that he knows nothing about the topic. I'm not sure now whether the RfC can continue. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:37, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have to apologize, because it appears that several, perhaps all, of these editors are listed at Wikipedia:Feedback request service, so that does not count as canvassing.

Still, please consider whether there is any point in having someone comment who knows nothing about this issue. The one editor who has responded so far said he looked it up on "a few sites" and concluded that veganism is about diet. All it means is that more time is wasted having to explain to the closer that this is wrong, etc. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My actions were fully in accordance with advice here. I picked the first category of relevance WP:Feedback_request_service#Maths.2C_science.2C_and_technology and requested the first editor under each letter of the alphabet to comment. This was intended to get wider community interest in the RfC without any bias. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I might add that I have been criticised for not giving information about the subject of the RfC in my requests for input to the RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, you were right in this case, although SV can be forgiven for being suspicious given your history. Note that she corrected herself fifteen minutes after bringing this up.

However, how do you explain this blatantly inappropriate notification? Same article, different ancient settled issue, and you are still effectively drawing interest to the RfC. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not have to explain anything to you. You appear to be taking a somewhat undue interest in my editing in general.

In conversation with Dielectric he asked about bogus medical claims. I therefore mentioned what I considered biased medical claims being made in the veganism article. This is not the same subject as the RfC. I do not know Dielectric and have no reason to suppose that he would support my position in the RfC should he/she chose to take an interest in it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am one of the users refered to by SlimVirgin/SarahSV above as being canvassed by Martin Hogbin. I am pretty sure they were not canvassing ME. I do not know what my opinion is on the subject, I doubt Martin has the foretelling ability to guess that I would be for or against their position. I do not know if the choice of one user per first letter (Abhishikt, Badboyjamie, ChalkboardCowboy, Daniel_Mietchen, Ebikeguy, FrankDev, Gilderien, HarshAJ, ImperfectlyInformed, Jab843, Krushia, Ltcb2412, Metheglyn, Nabla, Pmanderson, Raeky, Salix_alba, Thomas888b) is Martin Hogbin or SarahSV's choice. If it is Martin Hogbin's I guess it also speaks for his desire to choose at "random".

I do not think the RfC is tainted in anyway by this.

I do think it is a very bad ideia to hand pick - even randomly - from the feedback users list. The users signed for requests which are presumably limited (there is a parameter to state the limit) and random. Handpicking denies the first and leaves suspicions on the second. I checked, and it is a sugestion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Publicizing_an_RfC for many years (2012?) and it is on Wikipedia:Feedback_request_service for a few month. I think we should remove that suggestion, as it may do more harm than good. Because user may not sign to the feedback request (I just signed off, I don't want this) and because it will likely cause wrong, but understandable, accusations of canvassing (or worse, be used to disguise real canvassing). I'll likely suggest that on a better place that this myself, soon-ish - Nabla (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, I see you are notifying even more users. I do not mean to imply that this is any sort of violation, but it may be imprudent for the reasons two editors discussed above. This process was allowed for cases where "there may not be enough editors to get sufficient input", whereas 21 editors have voted on this one, and it has been the subject of a very substantial amount of talk page discussion. Can you clarify how you are ensuring randomness this time? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the more outside comment the better. What is your objection to that?

I have continued to take the first editor under each letter in WP:Feedback_request_service#Maths.2C_science.2C_and_technology. I plan to continue with other relavant sections of the feedback request service. Do you see anything wrong with that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do. SlimVirgin and Nabla have also expressed concerns about it. That guideline was not intended for RfC's which have received this much attention. It's apparent you are continuing to notify people not because of insufficient participation, but because you have not yet gotten the result you want. Please stop. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Why do you suppose that randomly chosen editors will support your view rather than mine? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Martin, the RfC is about the "associated philosophy" part of the first sentence. That has nothing to do with "maths, science and technology," but that's the list you chose, rather than "religion and philosophy." Can you say why you did that? SarahSV ^(talk) 20:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: He did, obliquely: it was the first category, alphabetically. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, I don't follow. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Above he writes "I picked the first category of relevance WP:Feedback_request_service#Maths.2C_science.2C_and_technology..." by which he means the first alphabetically. (One does wonder why this RfC was listed in this category at all, but that's a separate issue.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, "the first category of relevance" doesn't mean the first alphabetically. The RfC question is about the philosophy of veganism. It has nothing do with "maths, science and technology". So I'd like to hear why Martin chose that. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sammy and SV. It was the first category that I fount, starting at the top of the list, that I considered had some relevance to veganism. As I have already said, I am very happy to ask editors from other categories to comment if you wish. What category would you like?

You are more that welcome to request randomly selected editors from any group that you consider relevant to participate yourselves Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In response to comments above, I have started to ask for the opinion of some editors in the 'Religion and philosophy' category. The list is not sorted alphabetically so, to be completely neutral, I am asking every fifth editor in the list to respond. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Fad in the lede

I want to focus and moving fad from the first sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I do support that. I do not think we should say it at all in the WP's voice. 'It has been called a fad' is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You comment on the talk page did not support that. I was having a conversation with another editor to move it but you interrupted it. QuackGuru (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, edit conflict/misunderstanding/ editing too fast. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The Young Montalbano

It seems you are just involving in a edit war without any good intentions. Your previous edit wars seems to suggest you rarely add value and get into wars just for fun, too much free time I suppose. If this is a way of showing your machismo then do go ahead. If you haven't watched the series or read a book then don't assume that others haven't done so. Read before trying to be a know it all. If you had read the books or watched the series, you would have known. But I believe it takes effort, which you profusely show by getting into edit wars with others. I have quoted the source in my revert. So if you aren't happy show some source where I am wrong before reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pranabnaik (talk • contribs) 23:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Pranabnaik, the onus is on the person who adds information to Wikipedia to provide a reliable source to verify what they have added. That is one of the fundamental principals of Wikipedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban on Talk:Veganism

Please see my close of the AN discussion, and I'll cite the conclusion: "I am hereby banning Martin Hogbin for one year from abusing the talk page Talk:Veganism, and will allow him only one single edit, big or small, in one single thread, written out in one single paragraph, every 48 hours. Violations and attempt to skirt around the limits of this ban are to be punished with a short block". Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. This is completely unacceptable I am taking it to Arbcom. I presume you will not be on the panel. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Case request

That's a formatting mess, I can't figure out what you were trying to do. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, a clerk fixed it. I noticed that your notification to Drmies didn't link to the case but to [22]. Doug Weller talk 15:57, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

And that was broken, it should read "Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Longstanding POV and behaviour dispute at veganism" - I presume they all need fixing. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ay caramba. Martin did you seek guidance as to whether filing this case violates your Tban? If you didn't, I urge you to withdraw this and check. The outcome here could be more editing restrictions due to that. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. I do not see how it does it referred only to the talk page of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)