Talk:List of vegans/Archive 7

Al Gore portrait

I added an image of Al Gore, arguably one of the world's most prominent vegans, to this gallery earlier today. My edit was reverted with the mind-boggling explanation "We have enough images of white American men." I notice that prior to making my edit, exactly half of the 42 portraits were of men. We are not supposed to be creating a false balance by attempting to make the portraits a demographic representation of humanity. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the gallery is not to promote prominent vegans, but rather to represent the type of people who are vegans. Unless you have statistical data backing up the claim that men are more likely than women to become vegans, that white people are more likely to be vegan than other races etc then biasing the list to any one particular portion of the demographic is introducing bias. If anything this list is weighted too heavily towards whites and Americans so we should be working to address that bias not increasing it. If you actually want to play a constructive role in this discussion then I suggest you join the discussion above where Martin has initiated a discussion on this subject rather than edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I could equally accuse you of edit-warring. Anyway, statistical data shows that women are much more likely than men to be vegan, but that's irrelevant. It is not our job to make this list demographically representative of vegans, and especially not if we are only guessing about their demographic distribution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

An edit war is started by the editor who reverts a revert, not by someone who simply reverts a bold edit per WP:BRD. If every vegan in the world were included then by definition it would be representative. If we had an image of every vegan in the world in the gallery it would by definition be representative. If our goal is to create a portrait of vegans then it is a goal to make the list representative. As I explain above there are many built-in biases that serve as obstacles to that goal, but that doesn't mean we should just disregard it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This was why I asked the question above. We seem now to have some simple and easily verified criteria for inclusion in the list but we still have arguments over the pictures. As Betty says, the purpose of the article is not to promote veganism but to show it, as it is.

One simple way to be representative of the list would be just to show every 10th (or whatever) person in the list but tthis would have its problems and I doubt it would get much support. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what the purpose of the pictures is. Does a list need pictures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well Sammy has compromised by replacing Andy Lally with Gore. I don't really see why the article needs a photo of Al Gore, but I suppose it doesn't need one of Andy Lally either so it resolves the matter as far as I am concerned. The question really comes down to what we want the gallery to do? If we want it to simply identify the subject of the list then we only really need one photo. If we want it to be representative of the list why do we even need to do that? The list arguably represents itself via its entries, and a gallery promotes some entries over others. Also, we have to bear in mind that the entries of this list are representative of anglo-centric editing interests, not really of notable vegans. For instance, if we had more female editors we would probably have more articles about female vegans. If we had more Chinese editors we would probably have more articles about Chinese vegans. You get the picture; our list would potentially look very different if demographic editing biases were completely removed. Now, we can't actually do much about who has an article and who does not, but we can attempt to remove such biases from aspects we do have control over. For instance, instead of our gallery showing that Wikipedians have a tendency to create articles about white middle-aged men why can't it simply show they come from all walks of life, different ethnicities, a wide span of ages etc? I suspect that would be truer to a comprehensive list of vegans of truly notable stature. However, if the gallery is just going to become another platform for promoting various activists—which tends to be the case with people that are famous for being vegans—then I would prefer to scrub it and save myself thousands of words debating the issue.. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Sorry I overreacted earlier. I didn't realize what you were trying to do and so understood your edit comment completely out of context, and it incensed me. My preference would be to use reasonable notions of prominence as a standard rather than demographic representation, but perhaps there is room for both concerns. Anyway I don't perceive the issue as worth fighting over either, so I'll bow out with apologies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Drop the descriptions in the picture captions

One thing that would make the pictures less promotional of veganism would be to drop the descriptions in the picture captions and just have the names. Interested users can still follow the links but we reduce the promotional impact of the gallery. I will try a few.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In some cases descriptions can be excessive and can be regarded as promotional, such as when someone is called a "writer, activist, scholar, teacher and Zen monk" when really he is basically just a Zen monk. Removing all descriptions of who a person is, however, may be a hatchet solution to a scalpel problem. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some objection here to having the pictures at all and I cannot see what purpose descriptions serve except to promote veganism. Removing just the descriptions seemed to me a good compromise. Interested readers can still follow the links. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The descriptions are informative to readers who may be browsing the list. I think all lists ought to have photo galleries if possible - they are aesthetically pleasing and help draw the reader's attention to more significant items in the list. Moreover I don't see what is promotional about simply having a gallery of portraits. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

They are all nicely taken photos showing healthy people looking happy and attractive, that is what we see in adverts. Anyway, is the discriptions that I removed. If the 'former US Vice President', 'US Senator', a ' Canadian triathlete' are all vegans then perhaps I should be one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Most notable people are notable for good things. If you find a notable vegan serial killer, be my guest and add him and his miserable mugshot to the gallery. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right, 'Most notable people are notable for good things', that is why having a gallery is promotional of veganism, it is not anyone's fault it just happens to be true and contrary to the NPOV principle. Note though that I am suggesting a compromise, which is to keep the pictures but remove the descriptions from the captions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is possible to remove bias from the descriptions without throwing away the baby with the bath water. For instance, describing someone as a "politician" isn't really promoting them: Hitler could be referred to in the same way, and so could Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe, Stalin etc. It's just a simple statement of fact. The problems are mainly limited to people who are activists, simply because their occupation is promoting an agenda; however if you just describe them as an "activist" and strip away the type of activism then you neutralize the promotional aspect of the description. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I still find the gallery somewhat promotional. This may not be intentional but showing professionally taken pictures of notable people looking healthy and happy is one way that I would promote veganism if I had that job. I might then want to show how they covered the whole range of important occupations and that they were not a bunch of crazy hippy types.

There are no accusations here of any wrongdoing, it is just the way WP works. For any minority viewpoint there will always be supporters of that viewpoint eager to help WP present it in the best possible light; they may end up being the majority editors of an article, not because they want to misuse the system but because they are interested in the subject and willing to put in the time. I think we need to be vigilant over this. There is a great fuss being made in several places over paid-for-editing. In my experience it has been unpaid enthusiasts who have introduced the most bias into WP. The beat way to deal with the issue is not to judge the editor but the content; WP is not a noticeboard for various groups and we must be strict about NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some occupations

Why is NFL football player better than American football player?

Is 'activist' an occupation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It isn't, but I changed it to make it match the other descriptions.

If it is all the same to you then, I would rather have, 'American football player' for them all, or just 'footballer' for all types for football player if you prefer, or even just 'sportsman'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing them all to American football players, but "footballer" means soccer player. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

2. If you're paid for it, it is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is his actual job title and you have a source that is fine but I suspect that the job is referred to by a different name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

They are usually referred to as activists in those sources. If you want to go find their fancy formal job titles, be my guest, but this seems inconsistent with your previous concerns. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fur farm vandal

Now that is not promotional, it is going too far the other way. Let is just find out what the chap does for a living and put that, otherwise 'Unknown'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fur farm vandal"

I'm concerned about this edit. Leaving aside the problem with describing living people as "ugly", I do not feel that "fur farm vandal" is a reasonable description of Peter Daniel Young. There are three reasons for this: First, the phrase "fur farm vandal" is not one which is commonly used/used at all. Second, the claim that he is a "vandal" is disputable (so describing him as such potentially violates NPOV). Third, and most importantly, the claim that he is a vandal seems to be a negative one, effectively making it an unsourced negative claim about a living person (something which is a big no-no). If there is going to be description (and I've no strong opinion on this), my preferred caption would simply call him an "animal activist", but I am also open to a longer description mentioning that he targets fur farms or that he has been imprisoned. Another option is "direct activist", which I think would be the way to refer to someone who engages in direct action. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The man was convicted of vandalizing a fur farm, and this is the source of his notability. Accordingly I think "fur farm vandal" is a reasonable and neutral description of him. Calling him an "activist" could be regarded as an endorsement of his actions, while saying he was involved in "criminal activity related to fur farms" is weirdly vague - it could mean he was operating them, and people browsing the list could get the impression he was a completely different kind of criminal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Describing someone as an activist in no way endorses their actions. Someone could accept, for example, that "pro-life" or anti-gay types can be activists without finding their goals or methods at all reasonable. If we're concerned about vagueness, the phrase "fur farm vandal" is just as problematic as my wording- in what way is his vandalism related to fur farms? (A "penis vandal" could be someone who draws penises on walls or someone who vandalises penises, for example). Also, a glance at his Wikipedia article suggests that he was convicted for the taking animals from fur farms and conspiring to take more- not "vandalism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of the dispute that he is a "vandal?" I actually chose this word because it seems like the most mild way of describing what he did, without implicitly endorsing it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) "Vandal" is clearly negative, currently unsourced, clearly disputable (for example, we might define vandalism with reference to an intention for destruction, while we could describe Young's actions as about rescue, not destruction- I think that would probably be his own description, but I obviously don't know, having never heard of him before today). And, again, the claim of "vandalism" is not obviously related to his actual convictions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the crime he was convicted of was "Animal Enterprise Terrorism." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not according to our article- this claims he was indicted on those grounds, and then found guilty of different crimes. Even if you were right, it's not clear what that has to do with "vandalism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he was convicted of it also.[1] So should we describe him as an "animal enterprise terrorist?" --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"American animal activist convicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act", with a link and a good reference, sounds neutral to me. However, that source does not say he was convicted under the act- it says he (at the time of writing) "plan[ned] to plead guilty to two federal counts of animal enterprise terrorism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jared Leto "mostly vegan"

In the Ryan Seacrest interview he calls himself a "cheagan" when asked if he's a vegan or vegetarian, explaining that he's "a vegan most of the time until [he] cheats" by eating things that may not be vegan and how he's eaten a red velvet cake that may have had butter in it. He's also uploaded a picture of a similar cake on instagram, tagging it #chegan. --Rose (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Bradley not vegan

According to the Guardian, Bradley is no longer vegan. "To gain more power in his 5ft 6in body, Bradley has abandoned his vegan diet for animal proteins." [2]. He should be removed from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:F0F3:11AC:E054:7E76 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- I've removed him from the list and added him to the "former" list above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Any particular reason why Paul McCartney is not on the list?JS747 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He is on the List of vegetarians. Are you sure he is vegan? It is well known he is vegetarian but I could not say if he is vegan also. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Separation of people: dead or alive?

Hi guys

I'm interested in seeing some progress on this list of vegans, would it be possible to separate dead from alive vegans? --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is something that is usually done on lists of people is it? None of the articles listed at Category:Lists of people by ideology are structured in that way. If you think it would be helpful to provide some overview of who is alive and dead perhaps it would be better to provide birth/death dates. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan that's okay, but "logically" there are no dead people on this list, right? Even then, luckily Adolf Hitler for e.g. was only a vegetarian, from outside it looks like Vegans have super powers and never die :) Birthday/death date would improve the list for everyone. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Grimes

Grimes is described in NME as a "vegan artist", and quotes her as saying that she has taken a "1 day hiatus". This is why I have added her back to the list. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

One source says,'US band say singer-songwriter is "not vegan" '. The other just says, 'The actor and musician talks vegetarianism, acting, and tells us that Grimes is his spirit animal'. I see no source saying that Grimes is a vegan. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

NME quotes some band as saying that Grimes is not vegan. It goes on to describe her as a "vegan artist"- that should be enough. Out quotes Grimes as saying that she is "vegan for intermittent periods". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article also quotes her as saying the "Ben and Jerrys is the only brand of ice cream i ever eat. their cows are treated ethically" so it appears this "hiatus" isn't just a 1-day thing. A term exists for vegetarians that consumes dairy products: lacto-vegetarian. An article labeling someone a "vegan" is neither here nor there, especially when it highlights a dispute where her vegan credentials are being openly challenged by other vegans. Simply put, calling yourself a vegan doesn't make you a vegan if you don't observe the practices associated with the diet. Ecorazzi also notes her saying "My brand of veganism is one wherein if your grandparents have no idea what you are talking about then you eat their beef stew rather than upset or confuse them. or if you really want to have cake with an egg in it on the holidays then you have that rather than just not being a vegan because you don’t want to give up occasionally having something that you love." It seems her brand of veganism is very different to the commonly accepted version so on that basis I challenge the addition of her name to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. I wouldn't personally call her a vegan ("demi-vegan" or "vegan-end-of-vegetarian" is probably how I'd describe her) but, and I'm sorry to break it to you like this, but Wikipedia isn't based on what Betty/Josh thinks. We base our entries on what the reliable sources say. And NME seems like the right kind of source for information about musicians- if she's described as a vegan there (and we don't have any sources suggesting that it's wrong/outdated) then it should be enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus and there are two editors who dispute your interpretation of the claims. Since you are an admin would you please explain how WP:NOCONSENSUS is not applicable to your edit? It was a policy the last time I checked, and you should be upholding it not violating it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS has nothing to do with the current situation. Had you read it, you would know this. In the future, please read policy pages before citing them. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Josh, I do not see where NME describe Grimes a vegan artist. Can you quote the exact words please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Martin: "US band DIIV have criticised vegan artist Grimes for her take on the rules of the dietary choice." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not know how I missed that.

The article makes clear that her take on being a vegan is somewhat idiosyncratic. In other words that she is not a vegan within the normal meaning of the word. That is what the source says. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the source is that she has a particular account of veganism, while some people criticise her as not a real vegan. The fact, though, that she's referred to as a "vegan artist" is the key bit, for me- I hear this as "sure, there's an in-house debate among vegans about whether she's a real vegan, but she's still a vegan as far as we're concerned". To reiterate, for what it's worth, I'm not sold on the idea that she's a vegan (though I only came across her for the first time today, so far as I know) but I do think that we should follow the sources. She seems to self-identify as vegan, and is referred to as such in at least one reliable source (NME being about as good as it gets in terms of pop music magazines)- that's enough for the list, in my view. If we step beyond this, we're getting involved in the kind of arguments I referred to earlier in this comment, and I'm not sure that's the right thing for Wikipedia to be doing. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, when somebody talks about their brand of veganism it is tacit acceptance that their practises are not consistent with the general understanding of the term. @Martin Hogbin: You should just revert his edit; I would do it myself if I were not at three reverts. No single editor—admin or not—should get to unilaterally determine how the sources should be interpreted. His reverts have violated NOCONSENSUS and they are not in the spirit of WP:BRD either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I have repeatedly explained to you why my edits were not in violation of "NOCONSENSUS". Your insistence that they were is ridiculous, bordering on trolling. I do not want to unilaterally declare anything. I started this discussion. (And you're the only one who has mentioned that I have admin tools in this or any related discussion. I've not made an admin action in six weeks.) As to your initial claims- that's odd. If someone from One Direction talked about "their brand" of pop, you wouldn't want to use that as evidence that they were not pop musicians (would you?). Even if you would, it doesn't change the fact that she's explicitly labelled as a "vegan artist" in NME. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Martin and I must of course be incorrect because it is inconceivable that you are wrong. Since I don't interpret a key piece of policy in the same way as you then obviously I am "ridiculous" and a borderline "troll". At least that's now cleared up. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To say you are twisting my words would be to give you too much credit. If you want to discuss my conduct, you're welcome to leave messages on my talk page, but I can't promise that I'll engage with you. This is an article talk page- it'd be nice if you could use it to discuss the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want people to comment on your conduct then perhaps you should refrain from poor faith accusations of trolling. It cuts both ways sonny. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Josh, you think she is not a vegan, I think she is not a vegan, the band think she is not a vegan, Betty thinks she is not a vegan. The source does not say she is a vegan. We all agree that, when the word has its normal meaning, she is not a vegan. I really cannot see what there is to argue about. You have been bold, you have been reverted, you have edit warred but there is clearly no consensus for your change. You should know better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty: I'm not calling you "love" or anything of the sort, so please refrain from calling me "sonny". You can comment on whatever you want, but this is meant to be a discussion about the article. Martin: I was not the person who initially added Grimes to the list. I was the person who added her back after Betty removed her (three times). I'm amazed that you still hold that "The source does not say she is a vegan"- the very first line of the article refers to her as a "vegan artist". I'm not sure how it could be any more explicit, but it seems that there is a disagreement about what the source actually says. Perhaps we could hold a RfC- I'm happy to be bound by whatever the result is (would you be?), as I don't really have the time/inclination to argue about this much further. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Martin and I were discussing the issue and your interpretation of policy is a key component of the problem, regardless of whether you accept it or not. You were the one who started with the ad hominem attacks on me so you are hardly in a position to criticise. You have become increasingly disruptive in this discussion and have failed to take any points on board: two editors believe you have misiniterpreted sources and you have failed to obtained a consensus for your edits. That is the bottom line: as Martin has astutely pointed out you haven't gained a consensus for your edits, you have simply edit-warred to retain your preferred state. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We are allowed read what a source says, that is not OR or anything improper. Yes the source does use the words 'vegan artist' but the whole point of the article is that she is not, by the generally accepted meaning of the word, a vegan. In Wikipedia, or indeed any encyclopdia, words are expected to be used with their generally accepted meaning unless clearly stated otherwise. The whole thrust of the NME article is that Grimes may have been described as a vegan but she is clearly not a vegan because she eats animal products. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you want to add one particular person to this list based on a perverse interpretation of an article that is actually making the point that she is not a vegan.

I personally have no strong views on veganism but I do want WP to be a quality encyclopedia. For some reason I have worked on this article with the sole purpose of maintaining an encyclopedic and neutral article rather than a medium for attacking or promoting veganism. The addition that you support significantly corrodes this quality.

There is no consensus to add this person so I am going to revert as this is the correct procedure in such cases. By all means call an RfC if you wish and we will let that decide. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Occupations

I am still not sure why we have the field 'Occupation' but there seems to be a consensus to keep it, however, the purpose of the field should not be to glorify the person by listing their many and varied (often dubious) contributions to humanity and thus promote veganism. Can we try to stick to one major occupation please. If I have got it wrong please feel free to change. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There was agreement some while back that, in order not to present vegans in a promotional light, occupations should be simple (one word if possible). As I say above, if I have selected the wrong principal occupation from the list given, please feel free to correct me but that is no reason for reverting wholesale.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of WP which means that we should not try to present vegans as successful, attractive, or healthy (or for that matter as unsuccessful, ugly, or unhealthy). Long impressive descriptions of a person's occupation give a POV impression of the person. Please let us keep it neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

People who have multiple occupations should still have them listed. I'm dubious of why this should be kept "simple", but if so, it ought to be only as simple as possible, and not simpler. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The matter was discussed [here] where there was general agreement that 'Occupation' was not intended to be 'list of achievements' or to promote veganism by showing how successful or versatile the subject is. We have a link to the article on the subject for those interested in finding out more about them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You still should not remove the occupations of people who have more than one notable occupation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Images

In order to insure that the images are neutral can I suggest that we stick to the image in the article on the person concerned. This will have been subject to selection by a wider usership and, we hope, carefully selected to be the best representation of the person as a whole. I have changed a couple to see how it goes.

I also have to ask why we need to have the occupation in the image caption. This look overly promotional to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Having nationalities and occupations in the pictures is no more "promotional" than having them in the text of the article. No one would argue this, for example, at list of female mathematicians. Your concerns strike me as paranoia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled as to why a list of female mathematicians needs to state 'occupation'.

Why do you think we need to give the occupation twice on this page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For the convenience of the reader. Why do you think it is "promotional" to state a person's occupation?

I asked why state it twice. We already state it in the table.

Re the other list, actually look at it and you'll see what I mean. I think that list is a good example of what list articles ought to look like - it conveys as much relevant information as possible, instead of being a dry collection of phone-book-like data. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The other list is even worse; it looks like a book entitled, 'Women can be mathematicians too'. Although I fully agree with that statement it is not the job of Wikipedia to make points like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think this has been discussed before, so the discussion may be in the archives somewhere. Some of the images and captions are promotional, but I do not think it is necessary to remove all the descriptions from the captions to address this. Here are a couple of things I can support to address the problems:

1. Remove all images of animal rights activists from the gallery. This is promoting the subject matter of the article. There is no shortage of images we can add to the gallery (provided we have a decent balance i.e. men/women, a good spread of nationalities and professions)
2. Something like "Petra Němcová, Czech model" is a basic, neutral caption. On the other hand "Tom Regan, American philosopher specializing in animal rights" is a promotional caption, and "Tom Regan, American philosopher" would suffice.

Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for discussing the issue rather than [attacking me personally]. I thought exactly like you, that a simple statement of occupation would be suitable for the picture captions. The problem with this, in my opinion, is that we already have the occupation in the list so we would just duplicate the same words. Of course, in practice, they would not be the same words unless someone made it their job to keep them the same, so we end up with an encyclopedia with two different occupations for the same person.

The article is entitled 'List of vegans', and in my opinion that is exactly what it should be, we already have links to every person in the list so anyone interested can find out more about them. This article is not intended to be a 'Vegan showcase' where the variety, success, and beauty of vegans is displayed to the world. Even with the brief descriptions that you suggest, all lists of minority groups are likely to be promotional of that group just because we tend not to have lists like 'List of omnivores', and there would be no point in starting lists for such groups because they would effectivley be just a 'Lists of most people'. By the very nature of things lists tend to promote minorities.

This may not be the worst example of lists being used for promotional purposes but I seem to have landed here and try to do my best to keep this bit of WP neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate title?

Should the article be titled "List of notable vegans" or maybe "List of vegan celebrities?" Aylissa-S (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a good question. My answer would be to call it whatever makes the list more encyclopedic and less promotional (see discussion above). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

The current title reflects the norm for lists of people like this- we have list of photographers, list of suicides and list of people from Illinois, and not "list of notable photographer", "list of notable suicides" and "list of notable people from Illinois". Of course, all of these are lists of notable people and not just anyone, but that does not need to be specified in the title. If you think this should be changed, I think you would need to start a more centralized discussion, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

See WP:LISTNAME: "Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article." Betty Logan (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130630173844/http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/vegans-are-glam-20120903-259tq.htm to http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/vegans-are-glam-20120903-259tq.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Angela Gossow

I researched the date of the information about veganism in the other sources, it had to be in indirect ways because I cannot find that at the sites.

• She writed at her Facebook the biography while still being a member of Arch Enemy (from which she depart at March of 2014 and now it's her manager if I'm right), but the most important data it's this: "My future plans and dreams: Arch Enemy for the next couple of years. I have also started to do vocal coaching and will be working more closely with Melissa Cross (www.melissacross.com) in the future."
  • In 2006 [3] [4] she start doing free coaching and says "I have worked with her (Melissa) and will be teaching kids as well in the future."
• Here [5] I can't find a date neither, but the oldest in WayBack Machine is September 12, 2012, where she declared: "I have been vegan for about 2 years now... I kinda stopped eating milk products and eggs step by step."
• Although the link from her official page it's dead [6], the oldest available in Wayback Machine it's in 2012 too [7]: "I am vegan due to health reasons, animal rights and to protect the environment."
• Ultimately her Peta video was uploaded at november of 2011 [8].

I wait for your opinion and, if you want, help to search the original date of the sources, or new otherwise.

PD: I know that my expression in English it's terrible and I apologize very much about that, but I can understand almost everything with the help of a translater. If I could not express myself above nice tell me and I try it again, or as a last resort somebody who speaks Spanish maybe could provide help. Thank you. Ojo del tigre (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ojo del tigre. First of all thankyou for helping to expand this article and the vegtarian one. I believe BloodyRose reverted you on the grounds of the discussion at Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_6#Angela_Gossow. On her facebook page Angela Gossow describes herself as "vegetarian, borderline vegan". It seems that many sources describe her as vegan, and she may well have been at some point but she currently describes herself as vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 11:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160210014700/https://twitter.com/olobersyko/status/338979403402981376 to https://twitter.com/olobersyko/status/338979403402981376

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Emilie Autumn is not vegan but the page that confirms it is now removed

In the article about Emilie here on Wikipedia there's a link to her now removed post where she said she was no longer vegan. Some time ago I had a look at it and it was available, confirming the claim. On the other hand, the page is not available via any caching services known to me. There's a tweet by Emilie that confirms the page existed, an unofficial pinterest repost as well as a seemingly unofficial tumblr repost with the same content. Technically, there seems to be no way to confirm she's not vegan anymore but the information is there. How do we go about it? --Rose (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, while we need a working reliable source to add information, all we need to remove information is a compelling policy based argument that the claim is incorrect. The non-vegan claim was clearly sourced when it was added, so we can deduce from the law of averages she probably did state she was no longer vegan, or at the very least the circumstances are such that there is doubt regarding her status. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree. In whatever both of you decide, I am willing to collaborate. Ojo del tigre (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't want this to be about my opinion. Technically, removing her would not be following the currently available source(s). I know for a fact she's not vegan because I saw with my own eyes that on her official website she talked about copper toxicity as the reason she switched to vegetarianism (as seen in the tumblr re-post as well), but I know as much about some other people that are listed here, yet I wouldn't want to act upon this knowledge alone, to avoid making it look like original research. --Rose (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I would be ok with removing her. As editors we decide what content to include in accordance with various policies, and original research can only exist in an article, not outside of it. We have a valid reason for believing the currently available sources do not reflect her current status. On that basis I believe it is acceptable to remove her. If other editors come along and directly challenge that we can review the decision then. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@J Milburn: can you help us solve this? Rose (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources are one thing, but claiming someone is x when we have reason to believe that she is not x runs into problems with BLP. I've found an archived version of the source in which she claims that she is not vegan here, so perhaps that resolves this? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. That's a great find. I didn't think of looking up the whole website section at web.archive.org. The link is definitely enough to prove she admitted she was no longer vegan, and it's more recent than the source we have to say she's vegan. --Rose (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde - source

Source article about her veganism is not working. I would like to changed for this: http://urbanette.com/olivia-wilde-interview/. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:9:1:0:0:0:5 (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Prince

Prince Rogers Nelson (June 7, 1958 – April 21, 2016) if this list is only for living persons he should be removed. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Image gallery

An anonymous user has wholescale changed the portrait gallery; I was concerned that the new gallery was strongly biased in favour of (white) American entertainers and reverted, but the user has reverted me. Perhaps (s)he could explain the means by which (s)he chose the portraits for the (at time of writing) current gallery? Josh Milburn (talk) 23:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I concur. The gallery was chosen to be representative of race, nationality, gender and professional background. The new gallery is clearly not an improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)