Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 11 January 2016

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

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

Template:Vital article

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

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

Archives

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

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

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

Schnitzels

Ben, please don't keep adding those images to the page, particularly the schnitzels. If you don't like the ones we have, there are lots of good vegan food images on Commons and even better ones on Flickr. Most people will release them if asked. SarahSV 05:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

1. What are "these images"? What images do you mean?

2. What's wrong with the Schnitzels image?

I've tried to add only 3 images: the current Schnitzels image, the one of Bixa orellana as a Vegan cosmetics material (which you have deleted for a reason unclear to me), and another one (I think, I can't recall now what it was). You where the only one who objected for all of them, though User:Blue Raspberry objected to another one about a Vegan demonstration in Tel Aviv, Israel in the kinda rational claim that it doesn't seem enough related to Veganism. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ben, there were more than three (see here, for example, where you added 12). It's partly the number of images, partly the type, partly that you keep adding them over objections. The schnitzel image is a picture of something (not entirely clear what) in a plastic box. The demo image was one of people holding signs in Hebrew. There was the blue plastic pillow filling, the rice and beans made of dairy yoghurt, and the Indian meal that, according to the source (not the image page) was vegetarian, not vegan.

There are a lot of free vegan images on Commons and Flickr taken by professional vegan caterers, so if you want to replace any of the food images, we can find a new one from those collections. They list the ingredients, so we can be reasonably sure they're vegan, and the images are often professional looking. SarahSV 20:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Adding one image at a time shouldn't be considered problematic by means of "number of images".
• I see nothing wrong with the type of the image of the Schnitzels or the Bixa Orellana. It's a matter of the majority's consent and I hope there will be a majority to support them from now on.
• You where mainly the only one who objected the images. Sadly there aren't many other opinions in the talk page.

I have many free images at hand (some are indeed from Flickr) and not only of food. When I'll find the time I'll search and upload. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Ben, thinking about it some more, there's no reason you shouldn't create Veganism in Israel, if you want to make that your focus. I've noticed you adding quite a bit of material about prevalance there, food, etc. It would be good to have individual article countries if the sources exist. We could link to them at the top of the demographics section. SarahSV 21:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes - text restored

Viriditas, rather than making threats, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page where discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC) .

I have just noticed that the text that I supported was that used in the version that was listed as a Good Article. Martin Hogbin (talk) perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument consists of pointing me to a version from nine years ago. Please remind me: why is this older version an improvement? Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It was then listed as a Good Article and has since been delisted.

The current description seems to be extracted and synthesised from a number of sources. The former description was from an obviously independent (of editiors' opinions here) and authoritative source. Why do you prefer the current description? Martin Hogbin (talk)

@Martin Hogbin: Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_10#Commodity_status_of_animals you are aware of the consensus on this issue and understand the problem with this revision. Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_9#Too_promotional you have concerns about promoting the Vegan Society. It is impossible for me to believe that you cannot see what is wrong with the revision to the lede, which gives disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to the Vegan Society's view. In the context of your behavior on Green topics generally, it's becoming very hard to assume good faith, as several editors have pointed out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have looked at the section you link to and all I can see is the opinions of various editors, including me. I cannot see what is wrong with using a quote from the vegan society compared with what seems to me just the opinion of editors here. Although the current text does have references it seems to have been put together from snippets specially chosen by editors here to promote their personal opinions. Ideally we need a single descrption from an independent, neutral, quality secondary source on the subject.

Regarding what you call my 'behavior on Green topics generally', this consists mainly of disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda. WP should be neutral. However individuals may feel about green issues WP is not the place to promote green politics.

When you say you find it hard to assume good faith on my part what exactly do you mean. Do you think some person or corporation is controlling me? Do you think that I have some agenda other than maintaining a neutral, mainstream, view on WP? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I do not know whether someone is controlling you. It's a very weird thing for you to bring up, given that I've never made any such suggestion, and it seems like a straw man. I do think that any intelligent person who looks at your edit history here, on the gulf oil spill, or on other environmental issues, will conclude that you are WP:!HERE when it comes to these topics, and will see through your attempts to paint editors who express this concern as bullies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your mention of WP:!HERE is very appropriate. I am here to build an encyclopdia; I am not here to write articles that will change opinions, promote views, make judgements on companies, or to champion the environment, animal rights, left wing politics, right wing politics, or anything else, however worthy you may think the cause may be, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopdia. Please have a read of a good quality written encyclopdia to remind youself of the language, style, and content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.

My complaint is not that you disagree with me, we have to accept that our opinions on some subjects differ and that they are likely to remain that way, neither is it that you express your opinion here, or that you challenge mine. My complaint is that you prosecute your argument by making personal attacks and accusations against me, for example criticising my 'behaviour' in a completely different article, suggesting that I am not editing in good faith.

I can assure you that I am here to create an encyclopdia which should contain all the world's knowledge. It is not intended to be a mouthpiece for personal opinions and philosophies, however sincerely held..

I am happy to carry on discussing the content of this article with you in a civil manner if you wish, as I am doing with two other editors below, but please leave the personal accusations out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the quote is UNDUE; the Vegan Society is only one of many vegan groups, and I think it makes sense to refer to scholarly rather than propagandistic definitions when possible. FourViolas (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a fair point that a quote from the Vegan Society might be considered propagandistic (is there such a word?). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Although, when I look at it, “a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.” it seems a clear and neutral description. I would not criticise it as being too promotional. I have also noticed that this definition is quoted in one of the references cited in the lead.

What exactly is your objection to this wording? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of the Vegan Society's definition is already in the lead, in the third paragraph where we allude to the history. Because they created the term, it's appropriate to mention there how they moved from diet in 1944 to any animal use in 1951. It's not appropriate to prioritize their current definition, especially not in the first sentence, because now there are competing views. SarahSV 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I fail to how due weight applies here. Although I see a long discussion about the idiosycratic way that 'commodity' is used in the lead, I see no discussion of the various different views of what 'veganism' means. If we are to give due weight, I would expect to see a discussion along the lines of 'X says 'veganism is ...', 'Y says veganism is ...' etc. All I see is a editor-based synthesis of words and snippets from a collection of sources; essentially WP:OR.

I explained why I reverted Martin Hogbin; the Vegan Society quote is WP:Undue weight for the WP:Lead sentence. And there's also the fact that there are different types of vegans, as noted in the second paragraph of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

There are different kinds of vegans, which is precisely why diet alone should not be singled out in the lead sentence. The fact that diet is stated as the particular concern for veganism in general is WP:Undue weight for dietary veganism, to the exclusion of other forms of veganism. The other forms are already mentioned in the second paragraph. Zippy268 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Particularly in Diet

I would like to see a source for the specification that veganism is abstinence from using animal products "particularly in diet". The cite on that sentence does not specify that. Zippy268 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Searches for veganism on Google scholar bring up a lot of papers that treat veganism specifically as a diet. The following papers which treat it as an ideology also support the qualifier "particularly in diet":. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people who write scholarly papers on veganism, aren't even vegan themselves. I would like to know what page of the material you cited specifies the definition as "particularly diet" and why you think these authors have authority over the definition of veganism to begin with. I can provide numerous sources that specify that it is not particular to diet and that diet is only one part of a much bigger picture. Zippy268 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like you haven't read the article you are edit warring on. Why in the world would someone have to be a vegan to write a paper about it? That's a fallacious argument. Do you deny the distinction between dietary, ethical, and environmental veganism? The authors have authority over the definition because that's how we write encyclopedia articles—based solely on reliable sources. You say you've been editing Misplaced Pages for a decade but it sounds like you've been editing for ten minutes. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are in violation Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines again...in addition to spewing insults at me on my talk page, which is also a violation of both of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

As it happens, I do not agree with Zippy on article content but I do agree with Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks. Please let us stick to discussing content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

These are two highly cited papers on veganism as a cultural movement. Actually look at them and you will see the statement supported right in the beginning of each. For example, in the 2nd one by Cherry, the third sentence after the abstract is "The vegan movement is a good example: vegans are strict vegetarians who, in addition to not eating meat, fish, or fowl, also do not consume any animal products such as dairy and eggs. Since veganism focuses on eliminating animal products from people’s diets and lifestyles, veganism is often considered as only one goal or tactic of the animal rights movement (Munro, 2005)." --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your idea that they are highly cited sources is your personal opinion. Your quote also does not specify that it is particular in diet. The proper authority for the definition of the term veganism is the Vegan Society as they are the ones who coined the term to begin with. They specifically do not specify that it is particular to diet because it was and is not intended to be particularly in diet. Please see below for the correct description and definition.

"Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.

"When the society became a registered charity in 1979, the Memorandum and Articles of Association updated this definition of “veganism”" as:

" a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."

There is no reason why diet should be singled out in the lead statement when veganism is not particular to diet to begin with. In fact, it's a misleading statement. Diet is no more important than any other aspect of veganism according to the people who invented the word to begin with. Veganism is not particularly in diet anymore than it is particularly in clothing or particularly in toiletries, or any other use of animal products. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, there are many good reasons. See the thread directly above this one. I assume it's just a coincidence that you, Tha1uw4nt, and Martin Hogbin are all edit warring just within the last 24 hours over the Vegan Society definition? To me it appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That is correct. It is a coincidence that these other people are discussing this. However, at the same time, no it's not a coincidence because the definition of veganism is not particular to diet. No, those are not good reasons above. And the idea that a disagreement between authors constitutes a "disruption", is nonsensical. The idea that this constitutes "edit warring" is also nonsensical. Zippy268 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead of this article is biased towards diet. Zippy268 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A good quality independent authoritative source

Might I suggest that this dispute could be resolved by finding some authoritative independent (neither pro nor anti veganisn) sources which define the meaning of the word. At present we have a description based mainly on the opinions of editors here and supported by a synthesis of exerpts from selected sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember the meaning we give in this article should not be the meaning that editors here think it ought to be (even if they have done extensive private research on the subject) but the generally inderstood meaning of the term.

My dictionary (Collins 1994) says for 'Vegan', 'A person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any purpose'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I concur with all of of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Mirriam Webster online says for 'Vegan', 'a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)', and also, ' a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)'

Oxford Dictionaries online says, 'A person who does not eat or use animal products'.

Urban Dictionary, ' Someone who slaughters and kills fruits, and vegetables' (-; Martin Hogbin (talk)

Comment The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions:

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

More suggestions

American Vegan Association

VEGANS (pronounced VEE-guns) Live on products of the plant kingdom. Veganism is compassion in action. It is a philosophy, diet, and lifestyle.

Veganism is an advanced way of living in accordance with Reverence for Life, recognizing the rights of all living creatures, and extending to them the compassion, kindness, and justice exemplified in the Golden Rule.

Vegans eat solely from the plant kingdom: vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts and seeds. Vegans express nonviolence towards animals and the Earth. AVS promotes good health practices and harmonious living.

Vegans exclude flesh, fish, fowl, dairy products (animal milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, etc.), eggs, honey, animal gelatin, and all other foods of animal origin. 14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism also excludes animal products such as leather, wool, fur, and silk in clothing, upholstery, etc. Vegans usually make efforts to avoid the less-than-obvious animal oils, secretions, etc., in many products such as soaps, cosmetics, toiletries, household goods and other common commodities.14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Danish Vegan Society

A vegan does not eat meat, poultry, fish, milk products, egg or other animal products - out of concern for people, animals, and the environment.

Vegan society of New Zealand (from 2006)

"A Vegan is a person who knowingly chooses not to consume, use or wear any products produced from animals or contains animal by-products, and avoids products tested on animals." Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

SarahSV 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think you even understand what you have just written as it contradicts your entire argument. I'm sorry, but competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed

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

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

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

The concern is that the statement describing veganism in general as "particularly in diet" is false for an ethical vegan. "Particularly" means "so as to give special emphasis to". Ethical vegans do not give special emphasis to diet. They give the same emphasis to diet as they give to clothing and other purposes. I don't agree that removing that qualifier would imply that no vegans are dietary vegans because the 2nd paragraph directly and clearly addresses various different forms. A lead statement about veganism in general should have a value of true for all the different forms of veganism, in order for it to be a neutral statement.

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

It is not supported by footnote 1. Nothing in footnote 1 specifies that veganism, in general, is particularly in diet. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you should not be removing npov tags on articles while there is an ongoing dispute, simply because you personally disagree with them. Please see When to remove for the conditions of when it is appropriate to remove a tag. The conditions to remove the tag have not been met. Your removal of the tag is preventing others from joining in the discussion. Zippy268 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly is supported by footnote 1 and there is no evidence of any kind of NPOV dispute to deal with. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly is not supported by footnote 1 and there is plenty of evidence of a NPOV dispute to deal with. Zippy268 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

Veganism did not begin over a concern with diet, a vegan diet began over a concern with diet. Veganism began over a concern with not exploiting animals. Arguing otherwise is what shows no knowledge of the history of veganism. To argue that ethical veganism is abstinence from animal products, with a stipulation of "particularly in diet", is demonstrably false. Regardless of what you think about it or not, you should not be removing npov tags on articles simply because you personally disagree with them. Did you do this to try to prevent others from joining the discussion? Martin Hogbin has agreed above that the neutrality of the introduction is inappropriate. Zippy268 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is incoherent and tells me you haven't even read the article you are disputing. Competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin understands my argument just fine. Therefore, it is not incoherent. Furthermore, accusations of an editor's incompetence, is the very definition of a "personal attack". This is another violation by you of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks as well as Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines Zippy268 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What argument? I will not comment on Hogbin's "understanding" because I do not want to die from laughing. Again, it's really interesting how you, Martin, and another editor showed up to edit war on the same day over the Vegan Society. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

What argument? The argument that Hogbin agreed with above. Are you not reading the discussion you are participating in? Please, don't make me start dying of laughter. It may be interesting to you that other people are mentioning the vegan society, albeit completely and totally irrelevant. Furthermore, discussion on a talk page does not constitute "edit war". It's becoming more and more obvious that you are not even interested in discussing the matter. Are you going to spout more personal attacks now? Because it seems you enjoy doing that...Zippy268 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The definitional sentence has to apply as much as possible to all forms of veganism.

• If we were to leave out "particularly in diet", the definition would be false, because there are dietary vegans who do not abstain from using animal products (except in diet). Your claim that "veganism began over a concern with not exploiting animals" is contradicted by RS that support the existence of non-ethical dietary veganism.
• Furthermore, even for ethical and environmental vegans, it's accurate to say "particularly in diet", because dietary choices are made three times a day—far more often than choices about leather, wool, and bicycle tires.

Zippy, although I sympathize with your feeling that the discussion has not stayed focused on content, at this point there's little to be accomplished by argument alone. Please either provide an exceptionally strong RS claiming that veganism has no particular connection to diet, or let the matter rest. FourViolas (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"The definitional sentence has to apply as much as possible to all forms of veganism". I completely agree! This is the reason why this discussion is raised to begin with. It is currently is false, for ethical veganism, as defined by the The Vegan Society. Gary_L._Francione, an author quoted in the lead citation, also agrees that veganism is about much more than just diet. Ethical vegans do not give special importance to diet as the current lead sentence would suggest. With special being the key word here. Diet is obviously important to all forms of veganism. However, to say that all forms give it special importance, is false because in ethical veganism it is not given special importance. Clothing, toiletries, etc. are all equally important with regards to ethical veganism. I don't agree that it's accurate to say the statement is also accurate for ethical vegans because, like you said, food is used only 3 times a day. Meanwhile, all the other considerations like toiletries, clothing, etc. are considered far more than 3 times a day. Clothing is worn 24/7 perhaps. Teeth are brushed 3 times a day alone. Hair is shampooed once or twice a day. Deodorant is worn once a day. If one only considers teeth, hair and deodorant, that is 3 or perhaps 6 times alone right there.

However, if people are adamant on not removing the particularity in diet qualifier. I would be willing to compromise and add additional statements. For example, "particularity in diet, clothing and toiletries". Or something to that effect. I believe, like you, that it is important that the lead general definition be true for all forms of veganism. Because obviously, a definition of veganism in general must apply to all form of veganism. Special emphasis is given to diet with regards to dietary veganism and perhaps environmental veganism, but not for ethical veganism. There has to be a way to word it so that it has a truth value of true for all forms of veganism. Zippy268 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I really see where you're coming from—ethical vegans do not necessarily prioritize vegan diets over other consumer choices—but I can't think of a better way to put it. Since the statement is trying to define several practices at once, it has to be a little fuzzy; I read it as saying, "Veganism in general is more or less 'abstaining from animal products', and it's certainly (especially, particularly) abstaining from them in diet, as well as rejecting animal commodification etc." This feels like a good compromise between the various forms of veganism; if anything, it gives more weight to ethical veganism, because dietary and environmental vegans don't necessarily "reject animal commodification (but this imbalance is in turn justified by the WEIGHT of RS).

So I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a serious problem, and I'm not clever enough to think of anything better. If you can, please propose alternate wording. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for making an effort to understand what I'm saying. I would personally have no problem with a type of description that indicates that diet is merely common to all vegans, because that is true. I will put together some alternate wording proposals and present them for review. Zippy268 (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A NPOV tag on this article is appropriate

There is clearly a dispute regarding neutrality going on over the introduction, by more than one editor. Regardless of one's personal opinion on the matter, an NPOV tag is warranted to facilitate others joining in the discussion. The conditions to remove the tag have not been met, yet the tag is being removed. Please explain why you are removing the tag in an inappropriate manner.

Please see Misplaced Pages:Tagging_pages_for_problems for more information. It specifies that "In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time." Zippy268 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The addition of the tag isn't valid, because the conditions to remove it can't be met. You're asking us to pretend that there aren't degrees of veganism, and to accept that "particularly in diet" is false. But there are degrees, even if ethical vegans don't like that, and vegans do focus on diet, ethical vegans included. SarahSV 22:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The addition of the tag is valid because the article's first sentence is in dispute. I am not asking anyone to pretend there aren't degrees of veganism. The 2nd paragraph clearly states there are. I do not disagree, in any way, with the 2nd paragraph. The fact that this is even being discussed and disputed, is proof that a tag is warranted. Zippy268 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review circular reasoning. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with what circular reasoning is. What is relevant here is the fact that the article's neutrality is being disputed. Therefore, a tag is warranted. This is not circular reasoning. If you disagree with that, please explain why. Zippy268 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Zippy, your "dispute" has been addressed by multiple parties and has been found to be without merit. Please go and find something else to do with your free time now. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You and another person does not constitute a consensus. You and one other person also don't have the authority to decide what is "without merit" by yourselves. This is especially the case when multiple parties believe that it does have merit. No, I will not find something else to do with my free time now. Although, that is a clever attempt, or perhaps not so clever attempt, to try to silence discussion on the matter. Why do you want to silence discussion of the matter? Telling someone to just go away, is not the proper way to have a discussion. It's become apparent to me that you are not even interested in discussing it. Hence the comment for me to just go away...Zippy268 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious to the world looking at veganism from the outside in, that there is disagreement between those within veganism who take a purist view of what it is to be "vegan" and those who have a less purist take - and our sources of course reflect that. This is essentially an in-universe dispute which Misplaced Pages should not engage in as it has no stance on such disputes. Misplaced Pages does not operate by vote count, but within the WP:PAGs, and to do so we must characterize this dispute rather than make Misplaced Pages take sides. The tag has no merit. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Alex, there are two disputes going on here, one essentially within veganism and one about the article being to promotional/supportive of veganism. Personally I do not like tags and think it is always better to resolve disputes by civil discussions between editors.

If you look at the section above, you will seethat I have proposed a completely neutral way of describing veganism that is as in accordance in WP policy. I have suggested that, in the lead, we use a definition from a good quality, authoritative, secondary source. Dictionaries are one possibility but one with a little more detail would be better. In the 2007 version of this article, which was listed as a GA, we had definition from the British Vegan Society:

'he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals'.

That version also contained links to three other vegan societies, which also might be used. At present, the article uses a defintion using the vegan language 'the commodity status of animals' and a editor-written definition based on a synthesis of selected sources. Just hover over some of the refs in the lead and you will see what I mean.

Whenever a new editor, who wants to change things, comes along they are told that the matter is settled and they are being disruptive and they are often subjected to personal attacks and threats.

I have no strongly held views on veganism but I do have strong views on the neutrality of WP. This article is not neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

...If this dispute is over whether veganism began with dietary concerns or with ethical concerns, then surely there are reliable sources on the history of veganism that could be cited to prove either case. This is an easy fix. Just line up the sources and look at what they say.

When I saw that this lede was disputed as biased, I thought you meant the fourth paragraph, which includes support for veganism but none of the criticism of veganism. I would be surprised if "good for all stages of the life cycle," which includes newborns, was the standard medical view of veganism. There's your neutrality issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Having reviewed this talk page and the article's recent edit history, i think it's clear that the NPOV tag is warranted here. That's what the tag is for -- to bring attention to the fact that there is serious discussion relating to whether the article is really reflecting a neutral point of view, and that is clearly the case here. There is valid discussion on both sides of the issue, and it takes time to work that out. In the meantime, a tag reflects the ongoing discussion. I will also mention that i see some unfriendly behaviors in the above talk page dialogues that trouble me, and seems to be holding up the discussion from being more productive by peppering in personal attacks and rhetorical flourishes instead of sticking to discussing the content based on policies and guidelines. This discussion would go more smoothly if people could stick to the content and be civil to each other, and take each other's concerns seriously with good faith. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy Society, sports, and culture When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article? Zippy268 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• This is a silly RfC - can't the question at the nub of the neutrality dispute be asked instead to shortcut a meta-discussion about a tag? Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The whole purpose of a tag is to facilitate discussion. I don't believe facilitating discussion is silly. As it says in Template:POV "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles". Having other editors with various different viewpoint participate in the discussion is valuable to the discussion. Zippy268 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

An RfC will "faciliate discussion" - better. In practice NPOV tags don't do anything except sit there as a "badge of shame". Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:POV expressly prohibits the placement of a tag as a "badge of shame". If that is all it does, then wikipedia admins should remove tagging altogether. The fact that they are available means it is not just a badge of shame. Zippy268 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So maybe we have a solution. No tag, no RfC, but a civil discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support I think this RfC is an indication of the frustration felt by some editors here at the page ownership being asserted by some of the regulars here. I do normally like tags but I have tried for some time to discuss the neutrality of this article in general but have been met by threats and personal attacks rather than civil discussion. For this reason I support the tag until we have a free and open discussion about how WP:NPOV should be interpretted here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• The entire purpose of an RFC is to solicit outside opinion, not solidify the opinions of involved insiders. You're missing the point...again. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for involved editors to state their opinions at an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, you have missed the point. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yes (it seems obvious to me that this would be the case). If it's being disputed, then the dispute tag is appropriate. (I came here from NPOVN, where I'm discussing an issue concerning what to call a certain style of punctuation. So I have seen far less weighty issues marked with dispute tags.) It's annoying to see material that one feels is fully evidenced and supported with a tag suggesting that it is in doubt, but that's how Misplaced Pages works. Only if the dispute is completely unsupported should the tag be removed; that's not the case here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. Zippy, you said at WP:EAR#What is the appropriate avenue to resolve a dispute over a dispute tag? that you would prefer a "neutral party" to comment. I have never been involved in this or any related article, nor with any other editors here, nor have any particular views regarding veganism, and am therefore probably as neutral an editor as you could hope to find. In looking over the discussion just above (#The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed), and noting the prior discussions, I find 1) your (and Martin's) protestations of non-neutrality to be doubtful, and 2) the discussions themselves not likely to resolve that point. So this seems to come down to whether two (or any) editors have an absolute right to add a dispute tag because they maintain there is a dispute, where the dispute is of their own making, and more experienced editors say otherwise. Please note: you requested a comment, which I have supplied. I do not see that a debate was requested or offered, nor am I interested in debating the point. Whether you agree with my comment is immaterial: you requested comments, and any disputation would suggest that you are motivated by partisanship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• No, and I agree with Alex that this is a pointless RfC. The addition of the tag isn't valid if there is no policy-compliant way to do what Zippy wants. Perhaps he has simply misunderstood what "particularly in diet" means. But if he really wants to downplay dietary veganism in the first paragraph, or even exclude it, he is asking that the article ignore the RS. (See, for example, footnote 1.)

This article takes no position on dietary versus ethical veganism. It doesn't claim that one or the other has more or less validity. The only thing we know is that the dietary aspect is front and central, because that's what almost all the RS discuss. In fact, I've had difficulty writing about the other aspects because of the difficulty of finding RS. Viriditas suggested creating a Venn diagram. I would say this is an excellent idea. SarahSV 23:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here's a blank diagram for illustration. The three sets are strict vegetarians, ethical vegans, and environmental vegans. They all share diet in common. They differ on the values of health, lifestyle and anti-commodification, and conservation and sustainability. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. This clarifies the function of "particularly in diet." Dietary vegans, ethical vegans and environmental vegans disagree about many things, but they all eat vegan diets and they disagree very little about what that entails. SarahSV 01:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe the function is what is being questioned, at least not by me. I do not have an issue with the function you are referring to, AKA to indicate commonality. The issue is the wording and the biased impression that the particular wording gives readers. It gives readers the impression that all forms of veganism place special emphasis on diet. This is not true in a least one instance. Some other type of wording that does not indicate a special emphasis is placed on diet, but merely a commonality, would be perfectly reasonable. "Particularly", according to the dictionary means "so as to give special emphasis to". Ethical vegans do not place a special emphasis on diet. For ethical vegans, an equal emphasis is placed on all aspects. For ethical vegans, no particular thing is given a special emphasis. Zippy268 (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• Stop arguing about arguing There are two concerns: Zippy's proposed changes, and whether procedure is being followed. The changes are (barely) being discussed above; if we listen carefully and respectfully to each other, we can solve them. Arguments (let alone RfCs) about tags and so on are a waste of editor time, as are snarky insinuations. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Let us discuss the best way to define veganism, according to WP policy. I would be happy for the tag to be removed if we can have a free, open, and civil discussion in which all are free to contribute without fear of threats or personal attacks. I have started a section on the subject above, in which I have given definitions from three different vegan organisations but which is now being largely ignored. Why do we not continue there, or below if you prefer? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The particular point of this RfC is whether a dispute tag is warranted. Perhaps, perhaps not, but it certainly is not needed, and to insist on the point is to avoid the substantive issue. Closing this RfC would eliminate a distraction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we all agree then to end this RfC and start some free discussion over the disputed text?

I supported this RfC because it seemed the only way to get people talking in a civil matter about how we should define veganism in the lead. If we can all agree, I would be happy to end the RfC and get taliking? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't forget to sign your posts! Zippy268 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. Would you be happy to call off this RfC if we can get some sensible discussion on how to define veganism in the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

TL:DR

If you guys looking for a good definition phrasing, we in the Hebrew Misplaced Pages had much discussions till we developed the current phrasing that is with high level of accuracy (though it can be shortened in 2-3 words). Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Animal rights articles
• Top-importance Animal rights articles
• WikiProject Animal rights articles
• B-Class Food and drink articles
• High-importance Food and drink articles
• WikiProject Food and drink articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment