Talk:Carnism

Article fails to meet neutrality standards and is poorly cited
Specifically "Justification" under "Features", which relies heavily on Joy herself and non-academic sources. It makes repeated use of magazine articles, Joy's book, and a study from the University of Edinburgh. The study had a sampling of under 200 students. The sections asserts "Although scientists have shown that humans can get enough protein in their diets without eating meat" and only provides a YouTube video as a citation.

The section "Non-academic reception" references a handful of opinion pieces in online magazines and one critical piece from a beef industry outlet. The section name is disingenuous, as most of the pieces cited in support are similarly non-academic (e.g. aforementioned YouTube video, New York Magazine, HuffPost, Sydney Morning Herald).

This reads more as a piece on the book itself rather than an overview on the academic literature on "carnism". TheobaldShlegel (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

This article still reads like an opinion piece
Was reading the article on animal slaughter and this was linked. Reads like an opinion piece. I’m putting a NPOV template/infobox up top and I’ll be back some time tomorrow to do more here. Dvallin (talk) 06:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you have any suggestions about improving the article? I generally find it unhelpful when new editors or drive by IPs leave an NPOV template on an article and then leave Wikipedia and do not edit again. The same thing happened above with the account TheobaldShlegel. Psychologist Guy (talk) 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)