SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
Muleattack (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 83: | Line 83: | ||
:::::::You would not want to read an article about [[Penicillin]] that had been written only by patients who had used it. You would want to read what the relevant literature said about it. It's the same with [[Veganism]] or any other article. Our question is always: "what does the literature say?" Not "what do individual editors believe about it?" <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::You would not want to read an article about [[Penicillin]] that had been written only by patients who had used it. You would want to read what the relevant literature said about it. It's the same with [[Veganism]] or any other article. Our question is always: "what does the literature say?" Not "what do individual editors believe about it?" <font color="black">[[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|TALK|]]</font><font color="lime">[[Special:Contributions/SlimVirgin|CONTRIBS]]</font></sup></small> 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Slim, sorry but I'm beginning to wonder if you should read [[WP:OWNERSHIP]].[[User:Muleattack|Muleattack]] ([[User talk:Muleattack|talk]]) 01:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== 'vegetarian', 1847 and Brotherton == |
== 'vegetarian', 1847 and Brotherton == |
Revision as of 01:18, 20 August 2011
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
Sources for ethical/dietary distinction |
This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Veganism was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
Toolbox |
---|
Paris exemption section
How does this section add to the readers understanding of 'veganism' in the slightest? It's about Francione's criticism of Singer's food choice while traveling. And takes up quite a bit of space, a photo, and audio link to do it. I'm not even sure would be relevant in the entry on Singer, but I could see an argument made for it being there. It's just an advocacy bit thrown in as yet another volley in the Utilitarian/deontology war. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I just noticed the caption on Singer also refers to the Paris exemption. Ludicrous. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree, I don't see a good reason why it should have its own section here, or be mentioned in the caption for the picture of Singer. There is already a sentence in the "Ethical veganism" section that explains Singer's position. Maybe Francione's position could be condensed into one sentence and moved into the paragraph on Francione in the "Ethical veganism" section? TheLastNinja (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I added a POV dispute template to this section. Relevance and notability could also be disputed, but POV is probably the core issue. DaveinMPLS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I disagree. The paragraph is written to present an argument just to justify presenting the counterargument. Why no mention of Singer's response? (I don't even know if he made one). NPOV would give balanced presentation of both sides. As I mentioned in this talk section, there are multiple problems with the Paris exemption section. Couldn't find a template that fit any better though. I proposed moving it rather than just deleting it because someone put some effort in to it obviously, and rather than trash it probably better to move it someplace it might actually belong and deal with the unbalanced presentation there. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Vegan Fashion
Should there be a section (or a new page) on vegan fashion/shoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.141.22 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the article is lacking in that respect. I don't think the section should be called "vegan fashion". Maybe "clothes and footwear" or something like that? TheLastNinja (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
- And cosmetics. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
"non-human"
The use of "non-human" in the lead is confusing. Does this imply that cannibalism is an acceptable vegan diet (obviously it's not), or is it there simply to rule-out breast milk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.129.183 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- The latter. And also, donated blood, etc. Gabbe (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know that it's confusing so much as questionably necessary. In some contexts 'non-human animal' may be legitimately preferable to 'animal', but I'm completely agnostic about its use here. Either way reads correctly to me. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Dualism - again (aaargh) - and internal consistancy
The sentence "The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach, and a utilitarian/consequentialist one." is yet another restatement of a highly questionable dualistic model of animal ethics. Interestingly this entry itself contradicts the supposed primacy of the (mostly cosmetic IMHO) consequentialist/deontologist dichotomy! Carol Adams is notable enough to be mentioned and even pictured. Her views lie outside either of the mentioned views. I'll work up something more reflective of the breadth of the discussion. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Removing sourced material
Ninja, parts of the article seem to have been removed, particularly from the lead, which had become far too short (see WP:LEAD). Can you discuss the removals, rather than restoring them over an objection? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
- There was discussion of the changes to the lead over the last month and a half or so. Whereas my contribution (incidentally also fully sourced) was replaced unilaterally without discussion. I think the 'new' version should be restored and be given the benefit of community discussion. DaveinMPLS (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- The article had just been built up from an earlier version, so it makes no sense to wait a few weeks then decimate it again. If you want to expand it further, that's fine, but please try to leave what's there in place, unless it's mistaken in some way. And if you feel anything is mistaken (in the sense of poorly sourced or unsourced), I'd appreciate it if you could explain on talk before removing it entirely. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whereas decimating changes made 3 weeks ago - AFTER community discussion - is sensible? Shouldn't discussion have occured in both cases? Sigh. If the lead was too short - something I had previously admitted to - an appropriate course of action would have been to ADD SUMMARY MATERIAL, not restore material excessively specific FOR A LEAD SECTION. A course of action I had suggested in talk. Anyway ... I'll point out questionable material in a bit here. DaveinMPLS (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- My concern is that two single-purpose accounts want to remove a lot of material. This article has been plagued for years by people with strong views for or against veganism. What I tried to do a few months ago was expand the article, fix the writing, fix the sourcing, and make it generally conform to WP standards, and include multiple viewpoints, including disagreement within the vegan movement. I don't want to see that work wiped out by another single-purpose account with strong views. I don't intend that to be disrespectful toward you. It's just that it feels as though we're back to square one. So I'm asking you to explain here why you want to remove what you do. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
- Hi there Virgin, I hope the accusation about single-purpose accounts were not aimed at me. (It should be evident from my edit history that this is not true.) And even if my interests were narrower than what is the case, I'm not sure why that alone would make me less qualified to make edits. I thought everyone's contributions were equally welcome on Wikipedia, or so I have heard. Another problem with your revert is that not only did you remove the new lead that had been agreed through community discussion, but you also removed a lot of other edits from the article. Yet all you wrote in your edit summary was "restored material", neglecting to mention that what you actually did was in fact reverting to a several weeks old revision. It would seem that a better approach from you would have been to modify only the parts of the article to which you had specific objections. As it stands, I'm inclined to again revert your revert. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you and Dave are the accounts I have in mind. Dave recently started a canvassing thread on an advocacy site asking people to come and edit the article, a discussion you took part in. I was pleased to see several people there defended the article as it was.
- All I can do is remind people that this page must reflect what reliable sources have published, no matter what any given editor believes. The article is not an extension of an activist board. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and the article must reflect all majority- and significant-minority published viewpoints, in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources.
- You would not want to read an article about Penicillin that had been written only by patients who had used it. You would want to read what the relevant literature said about it. It's the same with Veganism or any other article. Our question is always: "what does the literature say?" Not "what do individual editors believe about it?" SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Slim, sorry but I'm beginning to wonder if you should read WP:OWNERSHIP.Muleattack (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
'vegetarian', 1847 and Brotherton
http://web.archive.org/web/20080630114643/http://www.ivu.org/history/renaissance/words.html is factually incorrect about 'vegetarian', based on current information. See IVU manager and historian John Davis' blog: http://www.vegsource.com/john-davis/vegetarian-equals-vegan.html. Also, lots of history links at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegan.html. It was NOT coined at the Ramsgate conference, and Brotherton almost definately had NOTHING to do with it. You can read the pre-1847 uses of 'vegetarian' on google books, or the nice summary on IVU's site at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegetarian.html. Anyone not tired of reading yet :) can find a brief summary of vegan history at http://www.candidhominid.com/p/vegan-history.html. (note I wasn't involved in writing any of this - my own blog addresses historical vegetarian cookery specifically - cookbooks and the like). But whatever. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- The earliest printed use according to the OED was Fanny Kemble, writing in 1839. I've added a ref to Kemble, [2] and attributed it in-text to the IVU until someone can confirm that the OED does say this. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- I get the problem with the first link now! An old outdated archived version of the page is being linked to. A version from 2008 is linked. The current version at http://www.ivu.org/history/renaissance/words.html has removed the Brotherton claim. Also, it would probably be a good idea to link to IVU's discussion of the Kemble claim: http://www.ivu.org/history/kemble.html. That page does confirm the OED claim. It also contains information on the validity (or lack thereof) of said claim. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
- The IVU/Kemble link is already there. Second ref, note 7. [3] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Images
The new image (tofu scramble) looks revolting. The other one looks okay as a thumbnail but looking at the full image just shows it as a load of different types of tofu. Tofu's a bit of a stereotyped vegan food. It's the vegan burger picture that really needs changing IMHO.Muleattack (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
- Your veggie burger with the rodent diarrhoea has finally gone. :) SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)