Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism/Archive 1

Article assessment statistics bot for the global summary table

@MaynardClark:, @Throughthemind:, @Rasnaboy:, @Odontocetes:

do you know how to get the article assessment statistics bot (WP 1.0 bot) working for the global summary table? It is working on most other WikiProjects, for example look at the WikiProject animal rights statistics box [1]. But it does not work currently for WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism. It would be nice to have the global summary table working for this WikiProject so we can display it.

There is some information about it here [2] and details how to set up [3] but it is not working, so something is not right. Any ideas? Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Veganism and Vegetarianism articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA		3	3	12			18
FM					14		14
A			1				1
GA		10	8	54		1	73
B	2	29	40	240		5	316
C		57	94	592		7	750
Start		32	147	1,108		12	1,299
Stub		3	27	162		3	195
List		9	6	12			27
Category			1		215		216
Disambig					1		1
File					12		12
Project					8		8
Redirect		1	2	9	9		21
Template		1			15		16
Other			1		9		10
Assessed	2	145	330	2,189	283	28	2,977
Total	2	145	330	2,189	283	28	2,977
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 11,760			Ω = 4.43

Good news, it is now working. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Essence of Assessment

Discussions of internal article assessment by Wikipedia editors and bots can be located and studied. MaynardClark (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed page

Here's a proposed page for someone to excel with, Mahatma Gandhi and vegetarianism. It could include Gandhi's philosophy of nonviolence and how vegetarianism was essential for understanding it. Just a thought. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Here is other context

I am not familiar if and how Gandhi had personal preferences outside the norm for the culture in which he lived. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he wrote and said vegetarianism is essential for a nonviolent activist, and that's the information I was thinking of which could be covered in a page. Exact quotes would be needed to that effect to make such an article topic notable, and could include favorite dishes, recipes, etc. Not one of mine, which is why I suggested it as a topic someone could "run with". Randy Kryn (talk) 23:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Opinions are needed on the following Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Reliability of PETA. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Vegan

Thanks to the people who set up this WikiProject.

I want share a problem and opportunity. I and some others set up meta:Wiki loves Vegan, which is a community group advocating for any Wikimedia Foundation sponsored event which includes catering to provide vegan options. I know that not everyone joins in-person wiki events, so that particular organization's objective may not be of pressing concern to many people here. However, I hope that people here share the sentiment that when anyone spends Wikimedia community money which comes from donors, then that money should go toward purchases which everyone finds accessible.

The bigger challenge, and this may or may not be out of scope of Wikipedia, is that there are no obviously available best practices for explaining to restaurants, caterers, and event planners what it means to provide vegan food. Typically, the food industry imagine that the vegan option is the same as the animal option, just without the meat. When there is a meal, vegans get salad and bread but no entree or buttered vegetables; vegans skip the dessert course because all desserts have dairy; and when there is coffee and cream vegans do not get a non-dairy creamer because they can have plain coffee.

I wanted to share this here as a real-world problem which wiki could address. I am imagining that all sorts of industries are looking for guidance, and if we could surface something and put it in an informative article, then we could shift public practice. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am based there are now plenty of "ordinary" non vegan restaurants which all serve at least 1 or 2 vegan options, and in that option there is a non-dairy desert. This is becoming more acceptable. This was not around ten years ago, so things are changing. I didn't know about the Wiki loves Vegan event. Maybe this WikiProject can help get more people involved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Baker Eddy

@MaynardClark:

I am not convinced Mary Baker Eddy had anything to do with vegetarianism. Her biographer Gillian Gill commented "As the years went by, though never a professing vegetarian, Mrs. Eddy ate less and less meat, just a little liver or chicken occasionally, with perhaps fish hash for supper, or something light on toast. Bacon—or salt pork, as she called it—was her favorite meat, and pigs were kept on the estate to supply the household's needs." (Gill, Gillian. (1999). Mary Baker Eddy, Hachette Books, p. 392). She was a meat eater her entire life, although the quantity seemed to lower with age.

From what I have searched, the quote "Man is not by nature carnivorous" does not appear in Eddy's writings, it might be a misquotation or entirely fictional. On a side note, the quote "man is not, by nature, carnivorous" is found in John Harvey Kellogg's book Shall We Slay to Eat? on page 11. What do you think? Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Vegetarianism was rejected by the founder of Christian Science, who repeated the doctrine that it was false to believe life and intelligence are in matter." (Jones, Gerald E. (1986) "The Place of Animals in Three American Churches: Church of Christ-Scientist, Seventh-Day Adventists, and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". Between the Species: Vol. 2: Iss. 4, Article 5.).

Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So a version of the phrase is found in Kellogg and attributed to Eddy? Hard to believe that she rejected what many consider to be a basis for human rights (as not 'owned' individually by 'consciousness bodily' (as the phenomenologists, like Edmund Husserl, would describe it. MaynardClark (talk) 18:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes there is lack of historical information for people's dieting ideas or their quotes get taken out of context. In this case the quote was entirely fabricated. There is a long list of historical people who were never vegetarian but in modern lists of vegetarianism they are included by mistake or from people with an agenda. Isaac Newton for example was never a vegetarian. There is a lot of evidence to suggest Mary Baker Eddy was mentally ill. She did not believe the material world around her was real. She was not a vegetarian. I cannot find any evidence she directly communicated with Kellogg but in Richard W. Schwarz's biography John Harvey Kellogg, M.D.: Pioneering Health Reformer, on page 61 it says Kellogg was bitterly opposed to Eddy's Christian Science ideas which he believed were false. Both Eddy and Kellogg held direct opposite views about the world. There is evidence that Eddy was a plagiarist but the quote in this case appears to be a modern mistake. Somebody may have read Kellogg and somewhere down the line it got confused with Eddy, or more likely someone just made it up and falsely attributed to Eddy. It appears others have also used that line or one very similar to it. I just discovered that Ghandi also said "Man is not by nature carnivorous". Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be included in the project

Perhaps a section 'Should it be included in the project?'

List of fried dough foods

Adolph Hitler

former vegetarians

Should those topics and articles be within our scope of concern? MaynardClark (talk) 00:24, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think former vegetarians is on topic, I am not sure about the other two. In regard to the "Open tasks" section, we should merge that content into the other sections. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think inclusion or exclusion are reasonable here, though for List of fried dough foods, I am skeptical. Do articles about every non-animal product food need to be part of this project? Rice? Mashed potatoes? High fructose corn syrup? Okay now I'm hungry... Jmill1806 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose inclusion of vegetarians If someone is a major figure in vegetarianism then fine; if someone is only incidentally vegetarian/vegan then no. List of incidental figures with a relationship to the scope of a WikiProject are hard to manage and outside the scope of typical editor interest. WikiProject Medicine for example routinely expresses regrets about including so many physicians just because biographies are not a popular editing interest in that community. If anyone wants to curate biographies do it in a list article or on Wikidata.
Oppose inclusion of all non-animal food If a food is intimately associated with vegetarianism as a lifestyle or social movement, like plant-based milk or designated meat substitutes, then include it. Including food products which are merely compatible is not productive. If anyone feels strongly then data modeling food on Wikidata is an option where listing and tagging every food product is welcome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'designated meat substitutes' - Is this a category that includes cellular agriculture? I have (preliminary?) reservations for including lab-based meat generated from biopsied material from animals, although that might be called or designated as 'designated meat substitutes', MaynardClark (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding 'caged and companion animals' who are designated as 'carnivorous': The generation of lab-based meat or 'designated meat substitutes' through forms of cellular agriculture may offer 'historic transformation' of the deeply-entrenched 'meat' industry (so that current species of 'meat animals' would no longer be 'kept' in 'factory farms', but does that discussion deserve place in this project (particularly as separate pages produced through this project's scheduled efforts? If other projecgts (or this project's individual members) push for developing well-written evidence-adequate articles on the topic seems tangential to whether or not this project should prioritize developing articles about means to feed plant-based materials of 'caged and companion animals' (to be readied some far off time in the future - or sooner). But then again, perhaps we ought to be more visionary about this project. MaynardClark (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional vegetarian characters

Hello everyone! I just thought I'd let you know about a page I created today titled List of fictional vegetarian characters, modeling it after some pages I created for LGBTQ characters. I know its lacking in some areas (like games and film), but I think its a good first start. The more entries on there, the better, although those entries should be well-sourced. In the future, vegan characters could possibly be spun off onto their own page, titled something like List of fictional vegan characters as well. Anyway, I thought I'd start the discussion here. I'm open to all suggestions and improvements. Hope to hear from you all. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for creating that page. Jmill1806 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! I'll keep looking for more characters as time goes on, but I think what I put together is a good start. Historyday01 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan celebrities missing information from their articles

@BrikDuk:, @MaynardClark:, @Throughthemind:, @Odontocetes:, @Jmill1806:, @Bluerasberry:

Do you know if Alec Baldwin, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, Zac Efron, Ariana Grande, or Leonardo DiCaprio are vegan? Many websites say they are but there is no mention of it on their articles. Angelina Jolie and Chris Hemsworth are former vegans. Arnold Schwarzenegger is on a plant based diet but you read all these articles and their diet is not mentioned. I think we should improve these articles if we have reliable sources they are vegan or ex-vegans. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Cyrus is no longer vegan, the article has been updated. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should assiduously monitor such persons' diet status and keep their articles updated as long as they qualify for inclusion in the project.

IMO, however, it is merely 'a diet that is morally obligatory', but not in itself sufficient to qualify any human individual as morally exemplary.

Anyone's merely not doing something wrong' will not in itself justify making everything else about a person 'morally normative!

I think that we can favor not eating animals without idealizing or idolizing those who refrain from eating animals in ways that set them up for indiscriminate adoration. MaynardClark (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago I'd added List of vegans and List of vegetarians to the 'See also' sections of entrants pages. This added large additional daily views to those two pages. Within a short time an admin removed all of them, and the page views of the two articles similarly declined. More recently I asked at one of those talk pages if the 'See also' ban was still on and had one response that it would be up to each individual page if the link would stay or not. Personally I see it being beneficial to add "List of vegans" etc. to the 'See also' of those listed, and the former attempt showed it was of interest to readers. Maybe others besides myself can comment on the talk pages of the two articles to bring the discussion back around again, and this could also include the interesting new page List of fictional vegetarian characters. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether any of these people are vegetarians or vegans. BrikDuk (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Introducing Template:The Veganism and Vegetarianism Barnstar. Jerm (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarian/Pescetarian/Vegan lists up for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination) Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Levins

@MaynardClark:, @Jmill1806:

Is there any real documented evidence Richard Levins was a vegetarian? The answer appears to be no. MaynardClark you wrote "That's because you (and most others) look only on the Internet", if the evidence is not on the internet anywhere, then where is it? Most books and journals have been scanned into the internet and a check on Google books and academic journal searchers such as JSTOR reveals nothing. Obituaries of Levins do not mention he was a vegetarian.

The book The Truth is the Whole: Essays in Honor of Richard Levins was edited by Maynard Clark, I also read your tribute to Richard Levins but no mention of vegetarianism can be found here. You request on the WikiProject page that mention of his lacto-ovo vegetarianism is needed but no sources seem to support it. Maybe you personally knew Levins so perhaps you have some personal experience with the man but not one reliable source on the internet mentions his vegetarianism so I don't think we can improve his article in relation to this WikiProject. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew Dr. Levins, who would often say that he was vegetarian (lacto-ovo vegetarian) for ecological reasons, and he stated that moral concern for others ought to be developed ecologically (not 'in a rights framework'). But then, he was a 4th generation Marxist, also. Obituaries were written by those who didn't care about the topic, and I wish we had made a point to include that in what others had said about him. Let me reach out to his students who contributed to the book and to those who contributed to his 3-day birthday symposium the year before he died. MaynardClark (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well he looks like the kind of guy who would be vegetarian because he was concerned about environmental matters and he did live a long life. I'm disappointed it wasn't mentioned in an obituary but as you say the writers wouldn't have personally known him. Let me know if you find any new information. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His son Alejandro wrote to me that we "don't know of any published mention of my father's diet. He was not vegetarian his whole life, but only in his last few decades." The last few decades of an 85-year life can be a significant biographical time period for a biographical comment. I am waiting to hear from his officemate and co-author, Tamara Awerbuch-Friedlander in Tel Aviv. His later-life research collaborators, like Richard Lewontin, could elaborate from experience with him and his conversations, research publications, and "scientific research directions." Because he was a communist in Cuba, FBI surveillance force him to forego institutional position in the Caribbean, and he "ended up doing vegetable farming for a living on the island’s western mountains."^[1] MaynardClark (talk) 07:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, could we get one of those students or family members to state publicly that he was vegetarian? Such as a tweet? Maybe you could do this yourself, Maynard, though I don't know if it would count. Unless something like that happens, I don't see how we can include it in the WP entry. Jmill1806 (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Levins R. Living the 11th Thesis. Monthly Review. 2008. Accessed 09/26/2020.

Gustav Mahler‎

Gustav Mahler‎ was a vegetarian for a while [4], during 1880-1888 according to biographies. I think this information is relevant to his article, but it has been removed for being "trivial" (see talk-page). Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Help save the List of fictional vegetarian characters!

I was deeply disappointed to see today that the article I created on September 7, not even 20 days ago, was nominated for deletion. Please comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional vegetarian characters so the page can be saved! The more people who comment, the better. Thanks! Historyday01 (talk) 05:35, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination)

This deletion request also covers List of vegans, and may be of interest to participants in this wikiproject. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy World Vegetarian Day!

Happy World Vegetarian Day. Have been adding red link brackets to mentions of the North American Vegetarian Society, which founded the day. There was once an article for the title but it has been deleted, the project should maybe ask an admin for a copy of that article for a project subpage so it can be worked up. Missing Indian buffets. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on an article about North American Vegetarian Society, founded in Orono, Maine, at the World Vegetarian Congress. MaynardClark (talk) 11:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan food companies

Hey guys, this is a topic that I'm interested in so have already made an article for Meatless Farm and I'm working on one for Moving Mountains. I only really know about companies active in the UK so if there are some overseas brands that are notable then please let me know and I can potentially do them next. Thanks Osario (talk) 12:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO there should be a general article - or a set of general articles - about the topic. What constitutes 'vegan' will be a concern (cloned animal cells do not qualify as 'vegan' IMO); only truly plant-based items could be considered vegan

Thank you for making these articles and contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia. I do not have any companies to suggest however there are many suggestions for new articles here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Veganism_and_Vegetarianism#Vegan_Plant-based_Foods_Businesses_and_Industries and here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Veganism_and_Vegetarianism#Veg_Restaurants where you might be able to find suggestions of articles to create. BrikDuk (talk) 10:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we 'are at it', the topic of hidden health harms (HHH) in 'merely faux foods' may deserve its own articles (high-sodium, high-fat 'faux foods' are not necessarily 'harm-free' to humans). MaynardClark (talk) 11:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetarianism reduced to diet

The talk page of the Vegetarianism Talk:Vegetarianism article has a discussion taking place about why the said article defines vegetarianism as a diet rather than as the dictionary definition of the word which is as a belief system and social movement. This confusion of the definition has become a cause for Afd nominations for other vegetarian pages. Editors, for example, are asserting that a diet is not a reason to categorize a list and this was recently argued for the 4th time with no consensus at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_vegetarians_(4th_nomination) with reasoning based on lack of understanding of what -ism means and how vegetarianism is a set of beliefs and social reform movement. Thank you for any comments as this inaccurate definition will continue to affect other pages relevant to this project. BrikDuk (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this were a nursing textbook, we might discuss 'vegetarian diet' AS a form of human diet, and a nutrition textbook might consider more (including land and energy resources, human motivations, etc.). An encyclopedia article ought IMO to be far more comprehensive (and deletionists reproved and chastised for their destructive actions). MaynardClark (talk) 11:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am finding hard to understand is why many editors are insisting the word means "a diet" when words ending in -ism indicate a meaning of ideology or social movement. It is fundamental to the meaning of the word and puzzling to try and understand the reasoning of these said editors. BrikDuk (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the AIC article

@Throughthemind @Psychologist Guy @MaynardClark @C.J. Griffin @Josh Milburn @Odontocetes @Jmill1806 @Bhagya sri113

Is there any scope of improving the Animal–industrial complex article? I've tried my best (and still am). Unfortunately, it is on the verge of deletion as some editors feel it is a fringe concept. However, I see it is well-known in the academic circle and is a growing concept in the animal liberation movement. Also see the related discussion for including speciesism in the Discrimination article/template here: Template talk:Discrimination § Discrimination includes all forms of discrimination, human or non-human. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's loads of literature on the animal-industrial complex. It's a pretty central concept in critical animal studies, and is used in other areas of animal studies broadly understood. It's hard to know what will satisfy editors who stick their fingers in their ears and shout FRINGE FRINGE FRINGE -- has any indication been given of what the critics are actually looking for? Josh Milburn (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created the article a few years ago with all the sources available to me at that time (and, yes, I know there are quite a lot out there that I don't have access to). Please see the recent revisions in the article's edit history (and also the talk page). I'm not quite sure if the removal of the examples given in the lede para is acceptable because this removal might indeed make the article appear "fringe" (thought it is not, like you said). Also, does the qualifier "fringe" warrants the removal of any links to the article found in other articles (such as the Speciesism article, where it was earlier mentioned in the lede)? I'm confused. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a quick google scholar search revealed you are right that the topic has received significant coverage. My suggestion would to be to incorporate such scholarship into the article. A good start would be with this piece by sociologist David Nibert: "Chapter Nine: Origins and Consequences of the Animal Industrial Complex" (p.197). UPDATE: I went ahead and added some material from the aforementioned source.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Animal-industrial complex" has 579 results on Google Scholar. For comparison with other minor concepts, I checked a few minority interpretations of quantum mechanics: "Many-minds interpretation" has 424 results, "Quantum Bayesianism" has 826, and "Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics" has 1,010. Comparison with established terms: "speciesism" 17,300 results, "prison-industrial complex" 14,900 results, "military-industrial complex" 54,700 results. Based on these numbers, I think it's fair to say Animal-industrial complex is a fringe concept. -- Chrisahn (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite clear on what's being claimed. Is the suggestion that the article should be deleted because there aren't enough hits on Google Scholar? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a response to editors who stick their fingers in their ears and shout NOT FRINGE NOT FRINGE NOT FRINGE. -- Chrisahn (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly appears to be the suggestion. It is interesting to note that the examples of "minor concepts" provided above, every single one of them, have their own Wikipedia articles, including Many-minds interpretation with only 424 hits (fewer than AIC btw), Quantum Bayesianism with 826 and Transactional interpretation with 1,010. Minor ≠ FRINGE, apparently.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 13:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chisahn, I really have no idea what you're talking about. Could I ask you to speak in plain English? I am happy to do what I can to improve the article, but I'm not quite clear on what the problem is supposed to be, or what would fix it. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my last comment, I was talking about this. But to answer your question: The problem is that animal–industrial complex is a fringe theory. There's nothing you can do to fix that. -- Chrisahn (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, you've declared it a fringe theory (on the basis of some bizarre reasoning about hits on Google Scholar) and declared that there's nothing I can do about that. If there was any doubt about the difficulty of dealing with editors who stick their fingers in their ears... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hits on Google Scholar are just one of many indicators. (C.J. Griffin was the first to introduce them in this thread. Was that "bizarre reasoning" as well?) There are many other fringe theories that have more Google Scholar hits than "animal-industrial complex", e.g. "quantum mind" has four times as many, and there are non-fringe (but rarely used) terms that have fewer, e.g. "quantum dissipative system".

I should have been more specific when I said there's nothing you can do to fix that. There actually are things you could do: You could provide sources which prove that animal–industrial complex is an established term outside the fringe field of critical animal studies, e.g. in mainstream sociology, philosophy or politics. But it looks like there are no such sources. That's why I wrote "there's nothing you can do": you can try, but you will likely fail. Good luck. -- Chrisahn (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So now all of critical animal studies is bunk? This is an academic discipline with peer-reviewed journals and journal articles, books and chapters from reputable presses, modules at reputable universities, research organisations, and all the rest. You don't have to like it. But your demands are utterly unreasonable. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable to say that critical animal studies is a pseudoscience in the same sense that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience: It uses terms that sound scientific, but it does not make testable predictions, and mostly doesn't even try. Instead, it relies more on subjective experience and opinion. In the case of critical animal studies, that's intentional and explicitly stated in its principles. Critical animal studies has mostly political rather than scientific aims.

Again: To prove that animal–industrial complex is not a fringe idea, you could provide sources which prove that it is an established term outside the ~~fringe~~ very small field of critical animal studies, e.g. in mainstream sociology, philosophy or politics. Good luck. -- Chrisahn (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any interest in arguing about whether critical animal studies is pseudoscience. As I think we both agree, it is not (and does not purport to be) scientific in the way that thermodynamics is (and does). But I hope we now agree that it is a legitimate (albeit small!) academic discipline. But if that's so, I'm not sure why you want me to point to its uses outside of that discipline. Surely,if it's an important concept in an established academic discipline, that's enough? If you like, I could point to lots of "mainstream" (as in, professionals at respected universities) philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, etc. using the term -- some of whom may, but some of whom may not, profess to be scholars of critical animal studies. But I don't know what that would prove. I could point to the term being used in "mainstream" journals and in books from "mainstream" presses. But we both know these exist, so I don't really know what you're asking for. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps AIC should go into Critical animal studies as a section. And then you wouldn't have to argue about it being notable, etc. And in time the subject could perhaps accumulate sufficient citations to make argumentation moot. Normal Op (talk) 20:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn: "Critical animal studies" is not a "legitimate" or "established" academic discipline. It's more political activism than science. There are no departments or professors of "critical animal studies" anywhere in the world, and very few recurring courses on "critical animal studies" (I found two universities offering such courses: Brock and Lund).

The term animal–industrial complex is irrelevant outside "critical animal studies":

In the 620-page Oxford Handbook of Animal Studies (2017), "animal–industrial complex" appears only in the 20-page chapter on "critical animal studies".
In the 580-page Routledge Handbook of Animal Ethics (2020), "animal–industrial complex" doesn't appear at all, and "critical animal studies" occurs three times.
Even Critical Terms for Animal Studies (2018) only has two index entries for "animal–industrial complex" (but e.g. six for "anthropomorphism").

-- Chrisahn (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't care if you think that critical animal studies is not a legitimate or established academic discipline, and, again, I'm not interested in an argument about what defines science. We follow what the sources say. As you have noted, the discipline is taught at research universities (no named professorships? There's always some other line you want to rush to hide behind, isn't there?) Mainstream academic publishers like Rowman & Littlefield and Brill have book series dedicated to CAS. I am rapidly losing my ability to assume that you're acting in good faith -- it's becoming clear that you've decided that CAS is not OK, and you'll always be able to find some other language or some other argument to justify that. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't care if you think that critical animal studies is a "legitimate" or "established" academic "discipline". We follow what the sources say. As you have seen, the subject is rarely taught at research universities, and is of low to very low relevance for handbooks about related disciplines. The book series you mentioned consist of four books each, published 2015—2018 and 2012—2016, respectively. I am rapidly losing my ability to assume that you're acting in good faith — it's becoming clear that you've decided that CAS is a "legitimate" and "established" academic "discipline", and you're trying to push your view against all evidence to the contrary. If there was any doubt about the difficulty of dealing with editors who stick their fingers in their ears... -- Chrisahn (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this has firmly crossed the line into trolling, and so I am disengaging. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're accusing me of trolling because I imitated your aggressive language. Instead, you could have tried to provide sources that confirm your claim that "critical animal studies" is an "established academic discipline". I think it's reasonable to expect that an "established academic discipline" is taught at most (or at least many) universities, and book series on the subject contain more than four items. That's certainly true for e.g. gender studies or transport geography. You could have provided sources showing it's also true for "critical animal studies", but you didn't. (I guess you tried but couldn't find any.) According to the available sources, "critical animal studies" is very rarely taught at universities. Maybe it's a "fledgling" or "nascent academic subject", but certainly not an "established academic discipline". -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@C.J. Griffin: If you think that if there's a Wikipedia article about a theory, it can't be a fringe theory, you're wrong. See Animal magnetism, Lysenkoism, Quantum mind and hundreds of others in Category:Fringe theory and Category:Pseudoscience. I think it's fairly obvious that animal–industrial complex is a fringe theory and mostly pseudoscience. (Its proponents state quite clearly that their goal is political activism rather than objective science.) But I'm sure you'll disagree. That's OK. Fringe theory#Demarcation problem says "it is difficult to distinguish between fringe theories and respected minority theories". I think animal–industrial complex is a fringe theory. If I understand correctly, you think it's a respected minority theory. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. -- Chrisahn (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would say that several hundred hits on google scholar qualifies as significant enough coverage to make it a respected minority theory, like those discussed earlier. As such, I think the article should be expanded based on this scholarship, not deleted. Anyone else want to weigh in on this?--C.J. Griffin (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with C.J. Griffin. Fringe theory is a very vague and broad category on which to decide anything about the scope of an article (WP:FRINGE). Any theory begins as a fringe (or even rejected initially) and expands only later as more and more research is done on it. AIC is an active topic in the field of critical animal studies continuously being researched on. It's not a "dead" theory per se, and including all that has been published so far would only expand the article to its true potential. I still feel several sourced contents have been removed in the article in the recent clean-up process, which needs to be reviewed and reverted as applicable. Maybe other editors can throw more light on this. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The idea of an animal industrial complex is alive and well in scholarship in a range of disciplines, from (noted) academics working at mainstream universities, publishing in peer-reviewed journals and in books from established academic publishers. It may or may not be associated with ideas that are not held particularly widely, but that's no different from (say) any number of ideas in anarchist theory, Christian theology, or postmodernist literary criticism. By all means, include sourced criticism of the idea in the article. But don't try to lump it in with homeopathy... Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisahn I disagree with the claim that AIC is a pseudoscience. That AIC can be used in political activism (just like any other social science theory such as capitalism) doesn't make it a pseudoscience. Integrating academic research and political engagement is part of critical animal studies. Calling a central topic of an interdisciplinary scientific field a pseudoscience only amounts to violation of NPOV. I agree that being "fringe" shouldn't stop the article from growing as the burden of research lies not with Wikipedia editors but with the political scientists out there. Rasnaboy (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: The concept animal–industrial complex is pseudoscience: it claims to be scientific (and its proponents use jargon that sounds scientific), but one can't derive testable predictions from it. See Science#Scientific method: "[A] hypothesis is put forward as explanation using principles such as parsimony (also known as "Occam's Razor") ... This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are testable by experiment or observation." I can't see how the ideas of animal–industrial complex could be falsified. Can you?

As far as I can tell, critical animal studies as a whole is largely pseudoscience, and apparently by design: One of its ten principles ("Subjectivity") explicitly rejects a basic tenet of science, and most others are about political rather than scientific goals. (This kind of pseudoscience is nothing new; for example, psychoanalysis has been very influential, but is now widely considered a pseudoscience, e.g. see [5].)

As you probably know, WP:NPOV doesn't apply to talk pages. If there were reliable sources calling animal–industrial complex pseudoscience, I'd add that to the article. But unfortunately, there are no reliable sources criticizing the concept (because it is so irrelevant that hardly anyone outside critical animal studies cares about it). -- Chrisahn (talk) 13:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the falsifiable and testable criteria is very useful to separate science from pseudoscience but there are some cases where this cannot be applied. It's early days on this subject, there might be some testable criteria in the future. But much in String theory isn't testable, symmetry breaking and some of quantum chromodynamics is not testable. I am not sure but it looks like some claim the Many-Worlds Interpretation is not testable and it is unfalsifiable. The same for the some multiverse theories, string theory etc [6] (although Sean Carroll disagrees). Carroll states that "it’s not so much that falsifiability is completely wrong-headed, it’s just not quite up to the difficult task of precisely demarcating the line between science and non-science." [7]. It's not always that clear cut on some topics. I would say this animal–industrial complex is a fringe idea, but I don't think it is pseudoscience like biorhythms, ear candling or urine therapy. There is a difference between fringe science and outright pseudoscience. Academics are actually publishing on this topic. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many physicists who consider string theory and the many-worlds interpretation to be mostly pseudoscience, largely because they are untestable. Most prominently Peter Woit [8] [9], but there are many others.

I think it's reasonable to say that the idea animal–industrial complex (and large parts of critical animal studies as a whole) is pseudoscience, just as it's reasonable to say that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience. But I know it's often difficult to delimit science, fringe science and pseudoscience. -- Chrisahn (talk) 15:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critical animal studies (the clue's in the name...) draws very strongly from critical theory, which is very well established in sociology and the other social sciences. It's not going to pass as science when contrasted with (say) thermodynamics, but that doesn't make it pseudoscience, any more than any other work in critical social sciences. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree psychoanalysis is pseudoscience. It can be hard sometimes to distinguish fringe from pseudoscience. Most animal rights scholars that have Wikipedia articles are not writing about this animal–industrial complex idea but some academics are publishing on it so maybe we will have more sources in the next few years. I think the article has been fixed because good sources have been added. Rasnaboy was worried this article was on the verge of deletion but it has been fixed, so I think this issue has been resolved. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have been deleted

This I'm thinking is vegetarianism by association of topic and could be misplaced here. However, this could be part of a pattern of targeting of certain content that is often associated with vegetarianism. I am finding AFDs of animal welfare groups proposed for articles with significant and ongoing coverage but improper citations, and I have been adding citations to keep the articles. But now I'm discovering others that may have similar notability but also were lacking proper citations that have already been deleted. All were nominated by an editor who has been accused of bias against other pages of interest to this project, and therefore I am sharing these AFDs already voted deleted that may be of interest to others participating in this project. Street dogs in Chennai, Dog Scouts of America, Kitten Rescue, Rescue Chocolate, Delta Humane Society & SPCA, Muttshack Animal Rescue Foundation, Western Plains Animal Refuge, List of governments supporting trap–neuter–return. BrikDuk (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this on the Administrators' noticeboard [10] Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sentiocentrism merge to Sentientism

See current merge discussion [11] Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix hot articles bot

I requested for a hot articles bot which was approved but there is an error. The bot does not load up, the page here is empty [12]. Does anyone know how to fix this? Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Aaron listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hank Aaron to be moved to Henry Aaron. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 05:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Photograph of Howard Williams needed

Has anyone ever come across a photograph of Howard Williams? This was the guy who wrote the classic historical text on vegetarianism The Ethics of Diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are the Wikipedia standards for finding and using photographs of historical persons who have passed?? MaynardClark (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I've not had any luck finding one. It's hard to find much information about Williams in general, other than his ODNB article.Throughthemind (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think its better to find photos for deceased historical people because there are usually no copyright problems. I tend to look for people deceased before 1925 because then articles or books that contain photos are always in public domain in the united states and in many cases Europe as well if the author if anonymous or deceased. Howard Williams died in 1931 so its possible if we find a photo of him it might be copyrighted if so we just upload it locally onto Wikipedia and not on Wikipedia Commons but I have never seen a photograph. I also need a photograph of Alexander Haig and Hermann Reinheimer but none appear to exist. I have found an obituary for Williams in a newspaper I will update his article with that info shortly but I agree there is not much information about his personal life unfortunately. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the early members of the Vegetarian Society were actually consuming fish. So they were pescatarian by todays standards. Howard Williams was actually a fish-eater. This might appear controversial so we leave it off his article but if you read Emmet Densmore's book [13] pages 40-41 we see that Williams supplemented his vegetarian diet with fish, as did Edward Maitland. When I started researching this in depth I also found that the Order of the Golden Age were also fish eaters and many early vegetarian Theosophists were. Can you be a vegetarian and consume fish? Well that debate still exists today [14] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert H. Wheldon (1883-1960)

@MaynardClark:, @Throughthemind:, @BrikDuk:, @Odontocetes:, @Valereee::

Throughthemind put this on the list. Rupert H. Wheldon was an early vegan who authored an early vegan cookbook No Animal Food. We should create an article for this person because he is important in the history of veganism. Please search for any references and put them here. I will be having a look tomorrow. Rupert H. Wheldon was born in 1883. When did he die? His book is online [15] Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the vegan cookbook Wikipedia article author would like to write about him. I found around 2400 references on GoogleSearch, but they are for the same books:

Yeah, he only authored one book. It's been reprinted many times with slight title changes and sold on Amazon under many reprints. I have access to records and found his death certificate listed in the California, Death Record Index, 1940-1997. He died on June 6, 1960 in Monterey. So this is now confirmed as Rupert H. Wheldon (July 3, 1883 – June 6, 1960). I see there is some coverage on Google books. I think he might qualify for an article and I am all for giving it ago. This is a good paper that mentions Wheldon's book [16], see pages 200-221. Wheldon's book was first published by C. W. Daniel in 1910. Psychologist Guy (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Leah Leneman article gives a little background on the author (1944-1999) of the article^[1] that mentions (see pages 200-221) that C. W. Daniel published Wheldon's paper in 1920. I had purchased a number of her books over the decades of my being vegan because Freya Dinshah of American Vegan Society had strongly recommended them. Because Ms. Veneman died 21+ years ago^[2], we cannot try to contact her. However, we could reach out by e-mail (S.Nenadic@ed.ac.uk) to her colleague and friend, Professor Stana Nenadic, BA, Ph.D. FRHistS, Professor of Social History and Cultural History at University of Edinburgh.^[3] Also, Ms. Leneman may have written or contributed to grey literature that mentions Wheldon (a long-shot, but she was reportedly an effective grant winner). Nonetheless, I doubt that Wheldon's opinions constitute much more than an analysis of what he could find at his time. Some of his illustrations are for populations that eat very little food (and the peasants of various European and other nations). That is what he calls a spartan diet in one place, and abstemious elsewhere. But why did Wheldon and others think that way, at that time (and in those places)? Where in England had Rupert Wheldon lived? Perhaps reading The Bloodless Revolution: Radical Vegetarianism and the Discovery of India would give us the background to reflect knowledgeably about such questions. I suspect that the New England Transcendentalist tradition would overlap the discussions in that book (as it touched intermittently upon vegetarianism). MaynardClark (talk) 03:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one on tracking down the death date. I'm struggling to find any information about Wheldon, other than the sources you've already linked Throughthemind (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this small article (the birth and death dates match up, as well as the middle initial), seems that he might have been a photographer? It also matches with ancestry.com here Throughthemind (talk) 18:07, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also found Wheldon's draft cards for WWII. The images won't load for some reason.Throughthemind (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

Nice research thanks for finding out his middle name. MaynardClark, from the link Throughthemind has found its now proven that Rupert H. Wheldon was Rupert Henry Wheldon a photographer by trade, he was not a scientist or trained physician so we should expect a few nutritional errors in his book. What the book really is, is one of the first vegan books to put forward some serious ethical arguments against people consuming animal foods. Wheldon was not a dietitian or physician himself but took all his information from other vegetarian writers. Unlike other vegetarian works of this period no medical journals reviewed Wheldon's book. Maybe it was too controversial. Most vegetarian books of this era were promoting the consumption of milk but Wheldon criticized its use. In the paper cited above the author Leah Leneman who mentions Wheldon's book says it was forgotten about. That is a shame.

As for Wheldon's influences he took a lot of his material from Dr. Alexander Haig. Haig was the first vegetarian to criticise the consumption of legumes and whole wheat bread because of their high- purine content and this was quite controversial in the vegetarian community of the day. Wheldon took influence from Haig's uric acid free diet but then seems to have also gone against it by recommending those foods to his readers (beans, lentils, wheat etc) but cites approvingly of Haig's criticisms of eggs. He also quotes from John Smith's Fruits and Farinacea and others. There is a food table on page 109 that I do not understand. He seems to be saying there is more protein in dried wheat, beans or lentils than beef or mutton. Maybe I misunderstood it but what he wrote is not correct. On page 94 Wheldon criticized the use of coffee and tea as poisons. That is something few vegans would agree with today. It's obviously an important historical work that reflects the thoughts of the times amongst the vegetarian community. Wheldon never lived in Britain he just visited briefly in 1910. I suspect he might have met C. W. Daniel because he published his book the same year. I believe Wheldon would qualify for an article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the American edition [17] there is a note from Elmer Lee, M.D., Editor, Health Culture Magazine. Elmer Lee was a vegan [18]. He would also probably qualify for an article but more research will need to be done to find out about his life. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had any sleep in 2 days. I will go to sleep now but tomorrow evening I will create the Rupert H. Wheldon with everything source I have. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you managed to get some sleep! I made an article for Elmer Lee Throughthemind (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert H. Wheldon article looks good thanks for your help with it. Unfortunately no photograph yet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Articles to be created

The list of Articles to be created' is not being tackled. Current list (which I recently alphabetized) is:

In addition, there is a Topical Articles section that suggests additional development:

Topical Articles
- Anatomical argument for veganism - there seems to be a long (recurring?) history of debating various forms of its claims. J. L. Buttner
- Calendar of vegan and vegetarian days - e.g. World Vegetarian Day, World Vegan Day, Great American Meatout, International Meatless Day, Meatless Mondays, TryVeg Tuesdays, etc.
- Claims about vegan diets, vegetarian diets - evolution of arguments and nuanced discussion of these claims. Usually these are health claims, but other claims include: cruelty would be decreased and the ecosystem would be less damaged if all animal agriculture were abolished.
- Historical development of the several arguments for veganism and vegetarianism. How have the arguments been developed, and how have vegan theorists conflicted with others on the basis of their own reasoning styles (e.g. Peter Singer and Tom Regan)?
- List of vegan awards, prizes, and other recognitions
- List of vegetarian music (NOT vegetarian musicians)
- Rebuild List of vegetarian festivals (requires documentation for everything that had been deleted, and documentation should be digitally available or most)/ This was once a very robust list; but it had problems. Further, how will this List of vegetarian festivals article cover the local responses to coronavirus pandemic lockdowns if they result in online events, such as in the VegfestUK Summerfest Online 2020? A major contributing article was https://americanvegan.org/vegfests/, but here is the archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20190210223053/http://www.americanvegan.org/vegfests.htm, which reports "The first VegFest was created by Toronto Vegetarian Association in 1985. Chester County (PA) has had an annual VegFest since 1991. Boston hosted its first major VegFest in 1996. Other cities caught the idea, and now VegFests, big and small, indoors and outdoors, proliferate. These events inspire people to try veganism or reaffirm their decision to be vegan."
- List of films and movies treating veganism and/or vegetarianism (or related themes, topics, ideas, values, behaviors) as a topic
- List of TV episodes treating veganism as a topic - There are many during some periods of time, but maybe listing the 'list articles' (of episodes in a series) in the WikiProject is unsuitable for the WikiProject.
- List of vegans and vegetarians in aging and longevity research and the longevity industry - cf. Aubrey de Grey, et al.
- Oxford Group (animal rights)
- Parades for animals and/or veganism
- PETA poster-persons
- Role of music in communicating vegetarian and vegan values, ideas, experiences, culture, and vision.
- Timeline of vegan product developments
- Timeline of research on populations practicing vegan diets.
- Vegan Nation (blockchain based cryptocurrency for vegans)
- Vegan theorists (nutritionists, advocates, vegan religious leaders, vegan worldview developers, et al.) - cf. Michael Klaper, Michael Greger, Ann Wigmore - maybe a category linking them together
- Vegetarians and vegans who won beauty pageants: Truong Thi May; Rosanna Davison; Manushi Chhillar;Davina Reeves Ciara (Harlem, NY); MacKenzie Green; Rachel Crawley; Merissa Underwood (Montana); Pamela Osborn Popp (Miss Vegetarian?); Marina^[1]; et al. could have their comments on veg*anism and their health related practices^[2]
- Vegetarian politicians (by nation): in USA, Cory Booker; Adam Schiff
- Vegetarian theorists (nutritionists, advocates, vegetarian religious leaders, vegetarian worldview developers, et al.) - cf. Mahavir, Ellen G. White - maybe a category linking them together

How can these 'future tasks' (punch list) be better/best/optimally organized (for service to our mission)?

How can we find more energy and time and opportunity and resource to tackle these challenges? Further, there are 'countless silent vegetarians and vegans' 'of note' (for Wikipedia's standards) out there in professional roles (whose existence is not publicly recognized, but who belong to industries which can benefit from diligent service and insight. Is there any way to 'operationalize' that resource by topical 'strategic' articles on 'a vegan strategic roadmap' to veganization across intervolving industries and social and economic sectors? MaynardClark (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

I agree that there are about a million things that could be done with this WikiProject. What you have outlined above is just a small part of what could be done. Unfortunately there are hardly any members of this WikiProject and nobody seems to be doing any of this work. Most of the vegan and vegetarianism Wikipedia articles are rarely edited. Apart from myself and two other users creating the occasional article nobody else is really helping this WikiProject. I hate to say it but this WikiProject seems to have just become a dumping ground on the main-project page of article requests most of which are not being created. There are hundreds of page requests and requested edits but nobody is doing the work.

If this Wikiproject had 50 or more active editors I could see a lot being done but as it stands hardly anything is being done. Until things start being finished I don't think we should keep adding requests to the project page. I see lots of talk but no action. I am always going to create articles but my enthusiasm for this WikiProject has dropped. Nobody has joined the project since October. I am disappointed with that but maybe it is still early days. Maybe in a year or two things will be different. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, too, that a lot more is needed to be done here. However, unlike with other Wikiprojects, where articles are improved despite vandalism and unconstructive edits here and there, in veganism and animal rights–related articles, it's often harder to maintain an article (or the contents of the article) than to create the article itself. While vandalism in other Wikiprojects is more about projecting things (incorrectly though), vandalism in veganism and animal rights projects is more about suppressing contents or suppressing the "unsavory" truth (as in deleting contents that is pro-animals and anti-people), perhaps due to guilt consciousness and cognitive dissonance of those vandalizing editors (who don't even participate in these projects otherwise). Recent examples include the struggle to maintain articles like Death of Regan Russell, Animal–industrial complex and Critical animal studies, deletion of sourced info in the Discrimination article, deletion of sourced info and image in the Speciesism article, ~~today's vandalism in the Sentience article ([19]),~~ and so forth. In my recent struggle to include speciesism in the Discrimination article, I saw very few supporting comments despite my requesting for an RfC (I guess the RfC is still on, fortunately). Even the updates to Cognitive dissonance article last year wasn't successful without a long debate. That said, including even a simple sourced info in animal rights and veganism articles often attract long, unconstructive debates, especially from editors who are skeptic about, or oppose, veganism. I guess this is a major cause for the lack of enthusiasm that Psychologist Guy is worrying about. I'm sure, we can improve these articles drastically with the current bandwidth of editors itself if we all put our best in the building the contents. I'm in for anything that you guys decide. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Rasnaboy: Wikipedia:Most people who disagree with you on content are not vandals — Chrisahn (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Chrisahn:, for pinging me and your genuine concern on this. But just wanted to tell you that you've mistaken me here. I don't consider anyone vandals unless their edits are so. That's the reason I struck through my above lines regarding the Sentience article edits. Please go through the said edit (link in the above strike-through text)([20]) and the subsequent discussion in that article's talk page (Talk:Sentience § Rasnaboy). The then unknown editor added his claims quoting me (as "According to Wikipedia User Rasnaboy..."), which I initially mistook for vandalism (for obvious reasons). Later, it was clarified in the discussion and I retained his changes in the article, revoking my edits. Hence the above strikethrough. Hope this clarifies what I meant. Cheers. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote: "...vandalism in veganism and animal rights projects... Recent examples include the struggle to maintain articles like Death of Regan Russell, Animal–industrial complex and Critical animal studies, deletion of sourced info in the Discrimination article, deletion of sourced info and image in the Speciesism article..." This very much sounds like you consider all of these content disputes (e.g. Talk:Animal–industrial complex/Archive 1#Removal of sourced contents, Talk:Discrimination#Adding Species section, Talk:Speciesism#Adding Webster's definition in the lede etc.) to be examples of vandalism. — Chrisahn (talk) 10:59, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point now. I should've been a bit elaborate prior to listing those. I listed some of the struggles and debates (in maintaining sourced infos), including vandalism and unconstructive edits. Only the edits in the Sentience article was what I considered vandalism, which I mentioned in that sentence (that too only before the discussion in the talk page). I agree that the sentence "Examples include..." kinda sounds as if I considered all those as vandalism, which I don't. Hope you get it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When a project member joins with us, that editor may have already created and/or worked on Wikipedia articles before. I would hope that prior experience is the case, that s/he brings working Wikipedia skills. But that volunteer may not have immediate awareness of where to start or the desire to break out and start something de novo. However, I do think that a wish list can be advisory, even if we don't attract someone who is ready to make it happen and to bring all the followthrough required at that moment. I have created several hundred Wikipedia articles already - and I have worked on quite a few more, but most are not in this project. My usersubpage tells which articles which could have been in this project had been deleted without much recourse. I have recruited several vegans to this project. I have worked on quite a few of the articles in this project. On the topic of the desirability of content, I suspect that the topic needs to be studied separately (not reported directly on this page). MaynardClark (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pescetarianism

There has been an edit war on the definition of pescetarianism in the lead. The same user on different IPs keeps trying to add pescetarianism as a vegetarian diet. This is not accurate as pescetarianism is not vegetarian because it includes animal protein from seafood. Some vegetarians do consume fish and that controversy sometimes pops up but if we are going by proper criteria and definitions then pescetarianism is not vegetarian. I don't think we should classify it as vegetarian as it will confuse users. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Technically, vegetarianism is consuming anything that is derived from vegetation. Thus, originally it refers to a plant-based diet (or dietary veganism). However, the term is already diluted in the mainstream by the inclusion of dairy, honey, egg, etc., giving raise to various shades such as lacto- and ovo-lacto versions of vegetarianism. Nevertheless, all these still try to maintain the ethical stance of non-killing (or so to speak), though not non-harming, thus falling short of veganism. Including fish in vegetarianism will, in addition to already compromising on the non-harming stance of current mainstream vegetarianism, also compromise on its non-killing aspect. Thus it remains even farther from mainstream vegetarianism, let alone actual vegetarianism or veganism. Given the already diluted definitions of vegetarianism (with the inclusion of dairy, eggs, and honey), anything beyond these will only make the definition invalid. The already-diluted term would then cease to be what it intended to refer to. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retaining dictionary definition of speciesism in the lede

Views required on retaining Merriam-Webster's definition of "speciesism" in the lede (to simplify the academic definition) at Talk:Speciesism § Adding Webster's definition in the lede. -- Rasnaboy (talk) 08:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Veganism is a shambles in desperate need of an overhaul

The article has been a disaster from the git-go, with far too little emphasis on creating a clear and concise reference article on the fundamental principles, worldview and ethos of veganism. The ethical basis of veganism has nothing to do with diet or nutrition, and no practical relation to vegetarianism, which is another subject altogether.

Solutions:

Firstly, the article should be edited strictly by vegans. Non-vegan editors lack a comprehensive understanding of vegan principles.
Secondly, administrators should hold back their urge to revert an editor's work until an edit is completed, and discuss any contentious edits.
Thirdly, a thorough search for citeable sources should be carried out (prior to editing) to support and verify any factual statements made in the article.

The article should be treated as a hub for all vegan related articles, as part of the WikiProject on Veganism, working as a collaborative team, with each editor focusing on a particular task, such as main body composition, style and formatting, and sourcing citations to support factual statements. Administrators should be aware of the project, and of the editors involved, ideally as part of the team. Any vegan admins?

All references to diet and nutrition should be omitted from the main article. Vegan nutrition should be a stand-alone article, cross-linked with veganism. NonhumanAnimalAutonomy (talk) 17:49, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You lost me at "Firstly, the article should be edited strictly by vegans. Non-vegan editors lack a comprehensive understanding of vegan principles." Your entire section, and the one you made below us, is egregious to the project's goals.[21] ApproximateLand (talk) 10:42, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan nutrition is a stand-alone article, cross-linked with veganism. (...) The ethical basis of veganism has quite a bit to do with diet or nutrition, and should not be omitted since food and nutrition are aspects of veganism (and any vegan's life), and because WP:RS mention the vegan diet and vegan nutrition when they discuss veganism. Only if they didn't was there a policy that would justify your deletion, namely WP:OR. But they do. Your second bullet point is ok but it is best, I would say, to finish editing before saving, and not in several steps. This avoids the revert issue. Note that as per WP:PROVEIT, any unsourced material can be removed at any time. Your third bullet points make sense and is in fact Wikipedia policy (WP:RS and WP:PROVEIT]]). Please note that it is best to discuss points about content on the talk page Talk:Veganism, as WP:MULTI advises. If you you have a problem with a particular editor, try their talk page or the Wikipedia dispute resolution mechanisms. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 23:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NonhumanAnimalAutonomy has been indef blocked. This user was being abusive to other users and was obviously a case of WP:FANATIC and WP:NOTHERE. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info! ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deceased Wikipedia editors that were supportive of this WikiProject

Flyer22 Frozen sadly passed away in January 2021. Flyer did not officially join the project but she was one of the first users I emailed on Wikipedia and she was supportive of the aims of the Project. Flyer a few days before she died emailed me telling me she had quit Wikipedia but I had done good work with this project and she hopes it continues. I still have that email. Flyer had quite a controversial Wikipedia history but she was a good editor. She will be missed. Flyer was a vegetarian herself and improved many articles in this area.
SlimVirgin who died in April or May 2021 was active on Wikipedia since 2004. This was a very experienced Wikipedia editor who created and improved hundreds of articles. She had created 369 Wikipedia articles and greatly improved many articles to GA status. SlimVirgin was supportive of this WikiProject and I spoke to her by email a few times. SlimVirgin did much valuable work on veganism related articles. A lot of the vegan studies article was expanded and written by her. Unfortunately this editor is no longer with us. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a notice list or other tribute to editors who have died would be appropriate somewhere on the project page? BrikDuk (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to list at least some of their contributions relevant to this project? MaynardClark (talk) 04:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "meat analogue"?

The title of the Wikipedia article "meat analogue" is confusing and does appear to be a food industry jargon term or other technical language that is not appropriate as the article title. A search of news articles that include the term "meat analogue" through Google returns only 979 results that go to most URLs in industry publications and some food industry blogs. Then on Google: "plant-based meat" with a return of 139,000 results, "vegan meat" with returning of 21,900 results, "plant‐based meat alternatives" with return of 17,600, "meat substitute" with return of 13,300. The article in the second sentence definition does include that "More common terms are plant-based meat, vegan meat, meat substitute, mock meat, meat alternative, imitation meat, or vegetarian meat, or, sometimes more pejoratively, fake meat or faux meat." Do any editors read "analogue" as a technical and jargon vocabulary and would suggest a better known word to be used as title? BrikDuk (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself for decades referring to "meat analogues" when discussing efforts to make plant-based entrees that we could 'recognize' as entrees (when that was 'our' mindset). MaynardClark (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saturated fat

There is a current discussion about saturated fat consumption and its association with disease. It might be relevant for users in this WikiProject who are interested in the topic. Link to the talk-page [22] Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Adams (politician) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Eric Adams (politician) to be moved to Eric Adams. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

North American Vegetarian Society

Saw Maynard mentioning it in an edit summary, checked the red link, and there was a version deleted in 2011 because, it seems, of non-importance. Since that reasoning was inaccurate even then, the Society and its hall of fame were and are quite notable, probably an admin can bring it back if it's in adequate shape. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that someone (else) will make the effort to bring back that article, or those articles. MaynardClark (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaynardClark. Same here, and I'll volunteer user space for it be brought back as a draft page so we can at least take a look at what shape it was in when it was deleted. Remember their U.S. national McDonald's campaign in the early 1990s that Howard Lyman and Jeremy Rifkin enlarged internationally the next year as the "Beyond Beef" campaign? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NAVS won the largest part of the award from a very large Southern California law case (the vegetarian bus driver^[1]^[2]), argued by a lawyer who was a practicing Jain.^[3] The lesson to us who have sincerely held moral beliefs is to not mess it up.^[4]

"Vegan beliefs should be protected as religious beliefs under Title VII and state FEP laws when a person's choice to adhere to veganism stems from deeply held moral and ethical beliefs and the person holds those beliefs with the strength of traditional religious beliefs. There are many indications in the case law and elsewhere that, under certain circumstances, vegan beliefs can and should be found to be "religious" under Title VII. As a matter of public policy, state FEP laws should provide at least as much protection as Title VH does for employees." (pp. 283-284)

The lesson to us who have sincerely held moral beliefs is to not mess it up by letting others frame our ideas in their ways; indeed, our ideas are our own.^[5] Trying to play polemically but not genuinely with intersectionality and to capitulate to political parties that don't align with our values may be part of that needless risk to the credibility of our moral and ethical beliefs and practices. Lisa Richardson's bio. Los Angeles Times. August 14, 2009. was a Los Angeles Times editorial writer familiar with the vegetarian OCTA bus driver 'conscientious objection' case (he refused to hand out McDonald's discount coupons to bus riders). Of course, vilification of vaccine objectors is also 'in the news' but discussing that here may not be politic. Many are not clear whether that topic should be considered consequentially or deontologically. MaynardClark (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn, there's not much there. Full text is

Founded in 1974, the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) is a non-profit tax-exempt educational organization. Their focus is two-pronged. The first is to provide a support network for their members, affiliated groups and vegetarians in general. The second is to inform the public about how vegetarianism benefits humans, other animals and our shared earth. NAVS accomplishes these goals through many means, including a quarterly magazine, developing and distributing other publications, hosting conferences, advising the media and assisting individuals with inquiries.^[6]

Do you want me to move it into your user space? —valereee (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually...I'm guessing that's a copyvio. It sounds like it might have come right off the website. —valereee (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's exactly what the first paragraph of the page the ref links to. So, yeah, recreating from scratch is the only possibility. —valereee (talk) 12:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[yikes, I put this up a few minutes ago and got the edit conflict, and there was 'from scratch'. Spooky at a distance unmind meld] Thanks for looking. We'll have to start from scratch then (hmmmm, wondering now where that saying came from). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, huh, interestingly, the original version was not a copyvio, only the final one. Someone came along at some point and replaced the entire thing with copyvio. Here's the original:

The North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) was founded in 1974. It is a none-profit educational organization. Two of the major objectives of the organizations are

to provide a support network for vegetarians
to inform the public about the importance of vegetarianism^[7]

So, yes, that can be restored, if you like. It would allow the date of creation to be 2011, if that makes any difference to anyone, and for the original creator to get credit. —valereee (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, and good to credit our forerunners. Thanks for the deep search. btw, Wikipedia has no page on "Start from scratch" (maybe it had to do with a cat, will search engine it later). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Draft:North American Vegetarian Society —valereee (talk) 12:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without doubt, an informative and interesting case can be made that NAVS and its associations (American Vegan Society, Vegetarian Resource Group, etc.) are notable and historically significant. Issues about vegans as American people are debated in the US Supreme Court.^[8] Oh, and no doubt, life as a vegan can be much harder if individual vegans seek to become intellectually consistent in order to satisfy their intellectual interrogators. Did Thoreau say that 'a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds'? How many of us have merely responded (to questioners) that we need to think longer and more deeply about the topic, but right now, we err on the side of doing less harm than the other possible choices might occasion? See moral reasoning. And surely the biomedical research industries morally challenge any of us who would work with them, but (the children of) Jains and Hindus and Adventists seem to have no challenges seeking careers in those industries. Also, a 'roadmap' project should be developed for 'the veganization of vaccines' (if we are going that way), as 'roadmap' projects are needed to dramatically develop biomedical research strategies that are not exploiting sentient beings (nonhuman animals) as biomedical research subjects (a long roadway ahead, but not without possibilities if we merely add those methods to the biomedical research toolkit). MaynardClark (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Parsons D. Where's the Beef? The High Court Renders Its Decision. Los Angeles Times. June 9, 1996.
^ Haldane D. Panel backs fired vegetarian bus driver. Los Angeles Times. August 24, 1996.
^ Page DP. Veganism and sincerely held 'religious' beliefs in the workplace": No protection without definition.
^ Johnson L. The religion of ethical veganism. Journal of Animal Ethics (Vol. 5, Issue 1). University of Illinois Press.
^ Johnson, Lisa. "The religion of ethical veganism." Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, p. 31+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A456289555/AONE?u=anon~c43bb445&sid=googleScholar&xid=f419dc2b. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.
^ NAVS: About Us http://www.navs-online.org/about/index.php
^ NAVS about us http://www.navs-online.org/about/index.php
^ Bull in a China Shop: Animals in the Workplace. Note Chapter 5—"Vegetarian and Vegan Workplace Discrimination"

Valereee has left a good start at the draft page, and the sources MaynardClark left are promising, and I was going to add the NAVS Vegetarian Hall of Fame with the inductees but am not sure if what comes up on a quick search can be used as an acceptable source. Anyone come across a good one? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added a pretty good source from another page, seems mainspace ready even though it's missing the hall of fame and the 1991 McDonald's event held in 40 cities (which Howard Lyman and Jeremy Rifkin then expanded to 900 cities internationally in 1992 in their Beyond Beef campaign). Randy Kryn (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks it's ready should feel free to move it. —valereee (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub

Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 22:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Levins R. Living the 11th Thesis. Monthly Review. 2008. Accessed 09/26/2020.

[2] _No_Animal_Food__The_Road_to_Veganism_in_Britain__1909-1944.pdf pp 219-228. Society and Animals. Vol.7, No. 3, 1999. The White Horse Press, Cambridge, UK

[3] Nenadic S. Obituary: Leah Leneman (1944-1999). Volume 20 Issue 1, Page 1-2, ISSN 0269-5030 Available Online February 22, 2011. (https://doi.org/10.3366/sesh.2000.20.1.1).

[4] Faculty profile for Stana Nenadic

[5] Beauty Pageants and Veganism (a blog entry, August 2019)

[6] Beauty Pageants and Veganism (a blog entry, August 2019)

[7] Parsons D. Where's the Beef? The High Court Renders Its Decision. Los Angeles Times. June 9, 1996.

[8] Haldane D. Panel backs fired vegetarian bus driver. Los Angeles Times. August 24, 1996.

[9] Page DP. Veganism and sincerely held 'religious' beliefs in the workplace": No protection without definition.

[10] Johnson L. The religion of ethical veganism. Journal of Animal Ethics (Vol. 5, Issue 1). University of Illinois Press.

[11] Johnson, Lisa. "The religion of ethical veganism." Journal of Animal Ethics, vol. 5, no. 1, 2015, p. 31+. Gale Academic OneFile, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A456289555/AONE?u=anon~c43bb445&sid=googleScholar&xid=f419dc2b. Accessed 12 Aug. 2021.

[12] NAVS: About Us http://www.navs-online.org/about/index.php

[13] NAVS about us http://www.navs-online.org/about/index.php

[14] Bull in a China Shop: Animals in the Workplace. Note Chapter 5—"Vegetarian and Vegan Workplace Discrimination"

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Article assessment statistics​ bot for the global summary table​

Essence of Assessment

Proposed page

RfC: Reliability of PETA

Wiki Loves Vegan

Mary Baker Eddy

Should it be included in the project

Fictional vegetarian characters

Vegan celebrities missing information from their articles

Barnstar

Vegetarian/Pescetarian/Vegan lists up for deletion

Richard Levins

Gustav Mahler‎

Help save the List of fictional vegetarian characters!

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (4th nomination)

Happy World Vegetarian Day!

Vegan food companies

Vegetarianism reduced to diet

Improving the AIC article

Articles that have been deleted

Sentiocentrism merge to Sentientism

How to fix hot articles bot

Hank Aaron listed at Requested moves

Photograph of Howard Williams needed

Rupert H. Wheldon (1883-1960)

Articles to be created

Pescetarianism

Retaining dictionary definition of speciesism in the lede

Article Veganism is a shambles in desperate need of an overhaul

Deceased Wikipedia editors that were supportive of this WikiProject

What is a "meat analogue"?

Saturated fat

Eric Adams (politician) listed at Requested moves

North American Vegetarian Society

Nomination for deletion of Template:Veganism-and-Vegetarianism-stub

Article assessment statistics bot for the global summary table