Talk:Carnism/Archive 1

Rewrite
This is an excellent rewrite,. Thank you for taking the time to do it. Sarah (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Dawkins
Sammy, I'm not sure that the summary of Dawkins on consciousness is correct, but I haven't read it and can only see a little of it on Google Books. The article said (I've made this passage invisible for now):

"A modern theory similar to Cartesian mechanism is advanced by Marian Dawkins, who rejects the view that animals are conscious and instead defines animal welfare as 'the state of an animal that is both healthy and has what it wants.' She advocates prioritizing animal health and human self-interest."

Dawkins seems to be arguing that, as no one can say what consciousness is, no one is in a position to decide who does and doesn't have it. For example:

"If ... we acknowledge that we do not know whether consciousness is a property of the stupid or the clever, the emotional or the unemotional, the innate or the learnt, the immediate sensation or the foresightful plan, the language users or the grunters – if we acknowledge that we really don't know, then the possibility of consciousness in all sorts of species remains intact (p. 113)."

I can see several similar passages, but nothing that suggests she leans toward nonhuman animals not being conscious. Sarah (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh, maybe you're right about this. I'm reading into it a bit - she spends half the book asserting and re-asserting an agnostic position on animal consciousness, and it's pretty clear why. (If she thought there were a good chance animals were conscious, wouldn't that be a good enough reason itself to base welfare arguments on consciousness, in a Pascal's Wager sort of way?) But I guess I'm not entitled to interpret. The thing is, I only included her because the first body paragraph has so much about de-mentalizing animals and presents this as irrational; I thought for the sake of NPOV a contemporary author who actually takes the Cartesian position should be mentioned, but it seems like those ideas have vanished pretty rapidly in just the last few decades. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Other issues
I've added to the top of the lead that carnism is the invisible paradigm. That we identify certain amimals as food and treat them badly, and others as companions and treat them well, is an illustration of carnism, but carnism itself is the underlying ideology. Also, I changed "endorses" to "assumes" – "belief system that assumes the killing." Endorse implies that it's conscious and informed. The argument is that it's an almost unconscious assumption.

Minor thing: I'm following your citation style, but found I had to use rp for page numbers. I'd like to change that, but I'll wait to hear from you.

I also changed the image (sorry, I forgot to add that to the edit summary), but please feel free to change it back. Sarah (talk) 23:55, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't mind about the image.
 * You obviously know more about wikitext than me, but I really hate putting page numbers directly in the ref because it makes it awkward to cite different pages of the same reference.
 * About the definition, almost all authors construct carnism a little more broadly than Joy. For example Gibert has "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning peo-ple to consume certain animal products." No mention of the N's, which appear to me to be hypotheses to be verified (as in Piazza et. al.), and importantly, as not exhaustive of the alleged prejudices involved in eating meat. I also don't like repeating these words like a mantra. Changed "endorses" to "supports," hope that's okay by you. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree about page numbers. How I usually write them is, on first reference: John Smith, Name of Book, Publisher, 2015, p. 1. And thereafter: Smith 2015, p. 2. But that would mean introducing short refs, and I don't want to do that if you prefer not to.


 * Supports is fine.


 * Not sure I follow your other point, but if you want to re-copy edit I don't mind. I do think it's important to move from the general to the particular, as in: carnism is the underlying ideology, and here are some of the paradoxes it leads to, e.g. the meat paradox. But if you prefer to restructure, that's okay. Sarah (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I confess I don't really know how refs work at all. I use ProveIt for everything.
 * About "general to particular" - I don't see that the sources support that these N's are really the underlying ideas; on the contrary, Piazza seems to indicate they are superficial rationalizations which attempt to resolve the meat paradox, so I don't think there's support for naming them as the foundations of carnism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Defenses section
I've jumped in and added a section on formal arguments for using animals for human use. Sorry not to check in first, but I do think it's a needed step towards balancing everything RS say about the topic and it ought to help solidify the keep outcome. I think my auto-citations are in line with ProveIt's. Thanks for your work! FourViolas (talk) 01:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this idea. It's essentially a criticism section, which we should try to avoid according to the guidelines, and taken together with the preceding "earlier ideas" section we now have a situation where half of the article is not actually about the topic. Conflating "support for meat" with "opposition to the implications of the carnism idea" is also slightly problematic - if we follow this route we end up rehashing the argument already at ethics of eating meat. Plus, one of the sources you added, the NYT opinion piece, is really weak. It's the result of an essay contest where the entries were required to support the proposition that eating meat is ethical and were limited to 600 words; the result was a really wishy-washy, unclear position.
 * What we actually could do instead is include the sources which are explicitly about vegan vs. carnist debates. I have a couple of those and if I'm not mistaken SlimVirgin discovered more in the AfD discussion. Maintaining balance is tricky, though, which is why I've left the "vegan discourse" section at a few sentences for now. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that a criticism section is not a good long-term solution, per WP:CRITICISM as you say. However, these arguments need to end up in the article eventually somehow. The Hsiao paper is published in some kind of a peer-reviewed journal and directly takes on the fundamental argument at hand: is it moral to harm animals unnecessarily? (It's frankly hard to find anyone seriously making his argument, but non-vegetarians such as the majority of WP editors will object if they don't see their POV included somehow.) The NYT source is not written by an expert, but no less than Singer and Foer thought it was a worthy contribution to the debate, and it certainly as some novel positions. I think I made it clear that the NYT itself is not supporting the eco-moralist position.
 * As a more general note, this article is about a concept defined by vegans (so they could have something other than "normal" or "regular" lifestyles to contrast themselves to), and this gives vegan writers a jumpstart on the literature which uses this term explicitly. In order to present a neutral, balanced article about carnism it will be necessary to cast a slightly wider net to find appropriate pro-carnist sources to represent the actual balance among qualified thinkers and populations. Have faith that giving everyone a fair chance to speak will let readers make up their minds appropriately!
 * Hang on. Why are we assuming that "defenses of carnism" is a criticism of the page topic? That would imply that the real subject here is "Arguments against carnism", which isn't what the title implies. SInce this is a page about carnism itself, it would be better to integrate the "defenses" section into a more general debate over carnist ideas, and organize the debate the way the philosophers do, by arguments and their refutations and counter-refutations. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC); edited 03:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've changed the heading to "Defense of meat-eating" so that we're not implying anything about its relationship with carnism. I agree with Sammy that this takes the article in a different direction, but agree with FourViolas that people will expect to see it. By the way, I'm using American sp because I think that was there already, but I don't mind which we use. Sarah (talk) 03:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality
I've added a cleanup tag for WP:NPOV, as this article is clearly non-neutral as it exists currently. In particular, the majority of the article has to do with arguments presented by people who do not support eating meat, even though the actual topic of the article is the philosophy by which eating meat is allowable. In other words, the majority of this article flirts with being one big controversy section. There needs to be substantial additions to the defense of meat-eating section, including possibly the health benefits of eating meat and arguments towards the "four N's" in more detail, in order for this article to be neutral. I also believe the defense of meat-eating section should probably be renamed and relocated towards the top of the article, as the arguments towards carnism define the philosophy itself, while the arguments against carnism represents a controversy section. ~ RobTalk 12:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed that the topic here should be "how do human omnivores try to resolve the cognitive dissonance between caring about animals and eating meat?" and that critiques of the various methods of resolution should not be over-represented. What if we treated the whole thing approximately as a philosophy textbook would, with an overview and sections based on particular arguments? A very rough-draft example of a possible arrangement:
 * Lead carnism is the ethics psychology and constructed morality of omnivory. Word coined by Joy.
 * Overview presentation of the meat paradox, examples of carnism in society
 * Resolutions of the meat paradox many (formal as well as subconscious) have been proposed, such as
 * Differential categorization All these sources for "humans honestly discount the suffering and sentience of food animals"
 * Moral community Can we find anyone using this argument specifically to resolve the meat paradox, eg admitting dogs into our community but not cows?
 * Ecological morality Like in the NYT essay, a deep-time end run around considerations of animal welfare
 * Traditional values Now I'm just making stuff up, but maybe someone has formalized the idea that "abandoning our grandparents' value system will lead to moral turpitude, so we should keep hogs like they did"
 * Darwinianism or Joy's "natural": we're evolved to do it (mention controversy about that), therefore it's prima facie moral


 * Then criticism of each line of argument could be integrated as appropriate into each section. Almost all the material in the article could stay, somewhat moved around and supplemented with the arguments of carnism.
 * Again, I think the most proper subject for the article under this title is that described by Rozin (quoted in Loughnan): ‘‘Meat should be of special interest to psychologists, because it is a quintessential example of the interesting and important state of ambivalence.’’ If people come here wondering about their own dietary habits, they will be better served by an honest assessment of carnist thought and a link to veganism than by a reflection of vegan activism. FourViolas (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC); edited 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Rob, it isn't fair to try to have the article deleted, then when it's clear that won't happen, add the POV tag instead. That tag is meant to be used as a last resort.


 * Rob and FourViolas, the article isn't about the ethics of meat-eating, but about the psychology of it, namely what mental states lead to the behaviour the article discusses, and how the belief system became so ubiquitous that it goes unnoticed, despite its paradoxes.


 * You see a stark illustration of it in pet stores. There are adored animals walking around on leads, and the store stocks expensive coats, boots, hats, beds, treats, toys, jewellery and toiletries for them. Then there are shelves full of bits of other animals who were raised and killed, in horrible conditions, as food for human beings, with the nastiest bits going to the (otherwise) pampered ones. Whether you're for or against meat-eating, that situation is undeniably odd.


 * The concept of carnism was named to explore this strangeness. Adding a section on how eating meat is a good thing misses the point. It would be like adding a section to the article on patriarchy on how men dominating women is a good thing. Sarah (talk) 16:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article should be about the contradictions, the "ambivalence", and and how people deal with them psychologically. Vegans, philosophers, and psychologists (the groups who have published RS about this) agree that that's the interesting topic here.


 * That's why I'd like to build the article around the paradoxes and the various ways people negotiate them. Structurally, we should cover a) the situation (briefly); b) the contradictions and strangeness inherent therein; c) the ways people talk themselves into disregarding the strangenesses; and, finally, d) the criticisms—by the people (like Joy) who primarily use the term—of b) and c).


 * Because of the neologism status of the word, and the special circumstances regarding who uses the word, we have to make an extra effort to represent the first three stages neutrally lest we end up describing the background and the opposing schools in the (sometimes) tendentious or straw-mannish language of Joy et al. Although carnism has mostly been discussed by people criticizing it, it is a philosophy tacitly followed by billions of people and deserves due respect. We need to give it a chance for its arguments/apologias to be aired in its advocates' voices, not its enemies'.


 * Also yes, I was meaning to link to patriarchy and eurocentrism for ideas on how to treat pervasive dominant ideologies. And I agree that the POV tag is a little irritating, when we're already aware that there's reshuffling and rewriting to be done. FourViolas (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It isn't a philosophy. It's an ideology that isn't explored by the people who engage in the practices at its core. They don't see it as a belief system; they don't see it at all. It is just the way things are: the sky is blue and human beings eat cows and love dogs (or vice versa, depending on the country). The idea that it deserves respect or disrespect again misses the point. That's like saying patriarchy does or doesn't deserve respect. The article should simply describe the belief system the way the psychologists describe it. Sarah (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I won't push to over-represent the little formal carnist apology there is, on the grounds that it presumably represents widespread lay opinion; I think it merits a little more airtime than it has now, in a slightly more logical structure, but when most RS criticize carnism most of the article should, too. Theoretical ethical attack and defense of carnist society doesn't even need much mention, period: we can focus on the best-RSed parts, the empirical psychology of the cognitive dissonance of carnistically differential treatment of species. What do you think of my structural suggestion? FourViolas (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure about the structure. At the moment we almost equate carnism with the meat paradox, when the latter is just an effect of it, so I think we should start with more theory. But I'd have to read the sources carefully first. I'm here only because of the AfD, so everything has been a bit rushed. Sarah (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Same. I've been reading half the morning. A lot of sources are inaccessible for me, unfortunately. FourViolas (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Me too. I've added at least one link (maybe two) to refs where the full article is available. Will keep looking for more of those. Sometimes academics upload their papers to their university's website. Sarah (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it kosher to add academia.edu links, given the free (as in beer) registrationwall and the fact that papers there are usually not quite publication-ready? (I'd ask WP:RSN but I'm lazy and Sarah probably knows the answer.)

I'd like to redo the current "ethics" section into a more prominent section on the justifications, conscious and subconscious, for carnism. There's plenty to build it out of in the sources we have: eg, in the abstract of this non-free source, there's the list "avoidance, dissociation, perceived behavioral change, denial of animal pain, denial of animal mind, pro-meat justifications, reducing perceived choice, and actual behavioral change." Fleshing out those concepts with Gibert & Desaulniers, Joy, etc, could give a good idea of what goes through non-vegans' heads when they are forced to think about their carnism, and with an explanation of the omission strategy and a nod to more formal refutations like Hsiao's and Bost's I think the article would be proof against accusations of straw-manning or cherry-picking. Suggestions for the name of this section? FourViolas (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm working on it now (please give me another 30min or so to set it out). I'm calling it "Justifications for carnism" and subsuming most of the "studies of the meat paradox" in a subsection about minimizing animal mind and sentience. Everything is always open to discussion and rearrangement.


 * I've withdrawn my nomination for deletion and have no vendetta against this article. Multiple people have expressed neutrality concerns in the AfD, though, and the POV tag is warranted. ~ RobTalk 06:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Defenses/Justifications section
There it is, take a look. There's a <!-- 'd part to be filled in in a month or so when I have access to Rothgerber (or earlier if one of you already does). I tried to give a fair hearing to the various RS-covered techniques people use to perpetuate this widely-accepted-as-strange/immoral/paradoxical situation. I will argue energetically, if necessary, that such discussion is highly relevant to the topic. Other than that, I welcome your picking apart any and all of my additions. FourViolas (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Page numbers
It would be good to sort out the reference style so that we can add page numbers without these squiggles. Does anyone mind if we start using short refs on second reference? Sarah (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to take the opportunity to get familiar with them, if you don't mind cleaning up my newbie errors! FourViolas (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it appears I failed to notice this question in the flurry of activity. I don't have deeply-held views about wikitext styles, and I don't mind if the ref styles are inconsistent. I do have a couple questions though:
 * Most of the refs you add, on various articles, lack URL links. Is there an obstacle to including them with short refs?
 * I often use page numbers to indicate where the relevant chapter appears in a book, or what pages of a journal an academic paper is (theoretically) published in. This means using the rp template to cite specific pages, which I think is much nicer than ibid. Will short refs require excluding the former information? And what happens when you want to cite different pages of the same source? --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, page links can be added with short refs, yes. Re: your second question, short refs include the page number (Smith 2015, p. 1), and when citing different pages you just add a new short ref (Smith 2015, p. 2). But if you prefer the rp template, that's fine. I doubt I'll be editing the article anyway, but if I do I'll go along with whichever style you choose. Sarah (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Denial of animal mind
IP, please discuss the title of this section. I think the sources are pretty clear that "denial of animal mind" is the correct terminology: I'm willing to change my opinion, but only based on reliable sources. (The above are, imho, some of the most objective and respectable the article has.) See Talk:Veganism for an example of how it can be frustrating and unproductive to try to argue about subtle connotations based on writers' intuition rather than simply accepting the language the sources use. FourViolas (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "denial of mind…deny minds to…mind denial"
 * "lowered mind perception…lacking the capacity for pain"
 * "denial of animal pain, denial of animal mind…denied animal mind"


 * "Animal mind" and "Animal sentience" are both correct, I just prefer sentience over "mind" because it's more specific. It's no big deal tho, so whatever. At the very least, I can just add it into the section. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Great, thanks. Minor point. FourViolas (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Piazza paper and ethics arguments
I'm going to restore the description of the Piazza study. As the only work which directly tests one of the main aspects of Joy's theory (4Ns) it's irreplaceable.

I also am not so sure about the last two subsections under "Attributes of carnism." The theories don't have a direct, clear connection with carnism, but rather are tangential philosophical arguments about eating meat. Hsiao in particular presents a very unusual position which is not likely to have influenced many people. (That is not to say he is wrong, but philosophical ideas which are novel as of 2015 are generally unusual.) The Piazza study also revealed that land ethics arguments do not figure at all in most meat-eaters' reasoning.

Academic ethical arguments don't usually address the main points of this article's topic. It's difficult to find someone arguing, from an abstract philosophical perspective, that it's ethical to slaughter a pig but unethical to slaughter a dog. Hsiao is a good example: he's in favor of meat, but his argument proceeds by denying the moral value of any animals, resolving the meat paradox in the opposite direction from the one vegans choose. This is not a typical feature of carnism.

There are also weight issues here: the arguments in the article now do not reflect the loudest voices in the meat ethics debate. We also should not allow this article to become a COATRACK for ethics of eating meat. I suggest that a possible compromise might be to split off a short summary section, one which has a few sentences summarizing the debate and a subheading like "main article: ethics of eating meat". Although, in line with the examples mentioned above, I do have to ask: would it be appropriate to include a section in patriarchy or sexism about moral arguments in favor of male domination? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the schools of Hsiao, Leopold, etc deserve some kind of presence as notable products and perpetuators of carnism, just as patriarchy (somewhat tendentiously) covers the suggestion that the patriarchy has a biological basis. The idea in general shouldn't be to justify (or attack!) carnism, but to present and interrogate the ways it manifests and perpetuates itself. That's why there are sections such as "Cognitive avoidance" which clearly aren't rational arguments in favor of the system.


 * It's a slippery task to pin down the difference between carnism (the belief system justifying meat and related exploitation) and the meat paradox (the differential concern for food and non-food animals). You're right that Hsiao doesn't address the meat paradox directly (you might extrapolate by OR from his discussion of cruelty or marginal cases), but his arguments and related ones are relevant to the foundations of carnist culture more generally. FourViolas (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While the principles behind this idea make some sense, and I had a similar justification in mind for the inclusion of Descartes' theory, I'm not seeing any evidence that Hsiao's ideas, or others' environmental arguments, play any significant role in people's attitudes about meat. The Piazza paper actually gives some strong indications to the contrary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Maybe we could tuck Hsaio, Leopold, and (neo)Descartism into some kind of "formal defenses" section? Again, avoiding rehashing ethics of eating meat while acknowledging that carnism isn't exclusively based on gut reasoning (pun intended). FourViolas (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that Hsiao and Leopold have any relevance to this article at all, though they could make useful additions to ethics of eating meat. Perhaps we should move them there?


 * As for "gut reasoning" - the 4N arguments are hardly unpersuasive (indeed, "natural," "necessary," and above all "normal" are some of the strongest endorsements you can give anything) and I've allowed them to appear without refutation, despite having several sources specifically about carnism which point ought the naturalistic fallacy, is-ought problem, and scientific consensus that vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate (e.g. Piazza actually says that the "necessary" argument is both the most strongly held and the easiest to refute, but I excluded this.) So I hardly think that section is unbalanced. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I believe that Hsiao is a student, his argument is odd, and his paper is about the ethics, so I'm not sure it should be here. This article isn't the ethics of eating meat article. This article is about the psychology of meat-eating, namely the mental states that have led to, and are caused by, the invisible ideology called carnism.


 * The previous lay-out (e.g. here), with the ethics section standing alone as a summary of the other article, was better, if it has to be there at all. It has now been merged in so that it's no longer clear what is different about this article. Sarah (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Bear with me, I'm having an ambitious idea. I totally see the point that this article is about the pervasive ideology of animal exploitation, and that the "attributes" section shouldn't be primarily a list of defensive strategies and arguments (although those which deeply explain how the ideology perpetuates, like avoidance, are relevant attributes). I'm inclined to agree that Hsiao (who, yes, is not mainstream or highly respected) and land ethics belong at ethics of eating meat. Except…


 * The term "carnism", as the three AfDs demonstrate, only recently became a mainstream word (at least in academia) for the cultural belief system based on the exploitation of animals for human food, clothing, etc. But philosophers and psychologists have been discussing the ethicality of using animals for human ends for a long time. Typically their arguments have focused on the purest form of exploitation: killing animals and eating their flesh. But most of their discussion (the ethics page covers consciousness, pain, basic rights) applies equally to killing animals for leather or sport—in short, to the entire carnist worldview. Now that we have a word for "treating (some) animals as mere food and clothing", might it make sense to gather "ethicality of treating animals as food, etc" under that word?


 * I'm proposing a pre-merge discussion discussion for ethics of eating meat and carnism, with "ethics" to become a large section called something like "ethical discussion of carnism". This would have to be strongly supported by sources indicating that the meat-ethics debate has started adopting Joy's language and concepts. If this evidence is absent, the proposal should of course be tabled until it's clear that food philosophers accept the framing of the debate in terms of "carnism". What do you think? FourViolas (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Carnist literature
Would it be worth mentioning Charlotte's Web, Fantastic Mr Fox and Animal Farm as carnist literature under "Earlier ideas"? I think it would be. I'm not aware of any other books/novels/literature that challenged animal slaughter as much as these two. I'd also like to nominate Watership Down and Chicken Run (yes, I know Chicken Run is a movie, but whatever).174.2.98.24 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not unless you can find a reliable secondary source describing them as such. It will be hard, when discussing a big pervasive idea like this, to stick closely to what's already been said, but WP:OR is clear. FourViolas (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What if something is TRUE, even if it has no sources for it? Carnism is a term coined in the 21st century, so of course there's not going to be a lot of research on carnist literature. I'd define carnist literature as literature where a core theme is "animals are in danger of being killed by humans for human consumption". If not here, then I'd like to create a separate article for it. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If something is TRUE, but has no sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. We have a "core content policy" of verifiability: everything we write must be supportable by some reliable published source. Iif we started allowing statements stand, especially controversial or non-obvious ones, just because some editor said they were true once, people would stop respecting Wikipedia as a reasonably accurate, balanced reference tool and start looking at it as another heap of Internet opinionating, a well-organized blogosphere. That's not what we're building: we're here to make an encyclopedia to present the information already published in reliable sources, easily and accessibly, to everyone. If that's not compatible with what you want to accomplish, we usually recommend you take your activity elsewhere. FourViolas (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What counts as a reliable source? I feel like most institutions, colleges, and universities are responsible for brainwashing the masses. Seems a lot of people don't trust anything if it's not in some stupid research paper, in ink on paper, or said by someone in a business suit. For example, Charlotte's Web is *obviously* a book about carnism, and most people would agree. I feel like you care more about SOURCES than the actual CONTENT. Either way, I'd still like to create articles for books and movies about carnism. If we can have an article about films featuring DINOSAURS and ghosts, I don't see why we can't have a list about carnism. 174.2.98.24 (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:IRS explains what we mean by "reliable", and WP:RS/N is where to go for opinions on the reliability of a particular source. Essentially, we ask that a source have editorial fact-checking or review structures in place, and a reputation for using them adequately. As the pages I linked above explain, these aren't my personal opinions: they're the bedrock principles of WP. FourViolas (talk) 03:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To the IP: I hope you don't take FourViolas' comments too harshly. We were all unfamiliar with the policies at one point and some are a bit unintuitive. Basically the gist of WP:V is that, since humanity has not evolved to the point that most of us can convince eachother of things, we don't argue the truth; instead, we have the brass-tacks argument of what sources say. Sometimes this unfortunately results in people literalistically copying what's written in a source, especially in contentious areas. However, once you've seen a few people try to include things that are "obviously true" to them, but obviously not to you, you may begin to see the wisdom of this system. On another note, you've been editing a lot. If you plan to stick around, you definitely should pick a username. It's unfortunate but true that IPs are treated with heightened suspicion and lowered respect, by almost everyone. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Humans as non-food animals
Sammy, about "non-food species such as dogs ": most sources on the meat paradox proper don't go into human-centric speciesism, but I think it's reasonable for us to do so. We're summarizing carnism, and in that context I think sources like Joy and Gibert fully justify integrating "humans>animals" speciesism with "cats>pigs" speciesism. It's a bit surprising, perhaps, but appropriately so, because the concept of carnism itself will be unfamiliar to most people. FourViolas (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gibert-Desaulniers talks about the view of humans as being at the top of the species hierarchy on p. 295, and says that carnists likely endorse this idea, but says this in the context of discussing speciesism and the relationship of speciesism to carnism. (I think there is enough of that in the article right now, and it's obvious that almost everyone values humans over other species.) There is no talk, however of eating humans. People have fundamentally different views about eating humans versus eating dogs, and even in cultures that practice cannibalism, humans are only eaten in special contexts - Melanesian native women may eat their unwanted infants, Cambodian soldiers may eat their fallen enemies, or just their livers, to show disrespect, etc. Nobody thinks of humans as "food animals." Including this here is original research and fundamentally muddles the point. Carnism is mostly about discrimination between similar species based on a culturally-relative classification as food animals. Speciesism is about species-based discrimination in general. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you aren't conflating carnism with the meat paradox? Carnism is the belief system in which eating certain animals is considered ethical and appropriate (Joy p.30), Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products (Gibert p.1). The "certain" implies some kind of speciesism, but (as I read it) carnism is a fundamental worldview, not just a list of edible species.. Carnism is the entire ideology of exploitation, moral disenfranchisement, and objectification of animals in the service of humans. In contrast, Loughnan decribes the meat paradox thus: Most people both care about animals and eat animals. He's talking primarily about what SV discussed, the pet store with jeweled collars for cats and tins for tuna.


 * In any case, I wasn't suggesting that carnism endorses cannibalism; merely non-speciesistically specifying that humans are one of the species carnism classifies in the "not to be eaten" category. Whether one believes that category should include all animals, all chordates, all animals except a few dozen birds and ungulates, or only humans, the sentence is a true description of carnist principles.


 * But it's not a big deal. If you feel strongly that it's inappropriate to note that carnism forbids cannibalism, I'll drop it. FourViolas (talk) 20:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the thinking underlying the prohibition (or endorsement) of cannibalism is much different from the way people think about eating any other animal. People can articulate all sorts of complex arguments for why they don't eat humans which don't apply to other species. It's a separate issue, and including it is original research. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A (veganist) peer-reviewed source (Joy/Adam Weitzenfeld) agrees with you: Carnism—a sub-ideology of speciesism that dichotomizes nonhuman animals into “edible” and “inedible” categorizations and legitimates the exploitation and consumption of animal others—presents an apt case study of speciesism. Site is blacklisted, search "An Overview of Anthropocentrism, Humanism, and Speciesism in Critical Animal Theory" FourViolas (talk) 19:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The removal of referenced text
What in the words that were edited out at 10:40 hours today constituted synthesis? - Fartherred (talk) 13:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The two sentences taken together made a claim not present in either source ("failed to recognize that" elderly people need B12.) On a different note your text also included criticism of one of the 4N arguments. I have many sources for such criticism but I am trying to exclude it for NPOV reasons right now, until I collect enough directly relevant sources to expand the article in a neutral way. Your solution, to balance such a criticism with a medical article that has no apparent relevance, is not a good one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That the article failed to recognize that vitamin B-12 supplements from a pharmacy are not an option for many of the poor is a fact. The fact can be verified by reading the article, so it is indeed verifiable.  I described the article in my own words which is required by Wikipedia policy forbidding substantial quotation in a case like this.  If you find better criticisms of the four Ns idea you can add it to article.  There is no reason to remove the text that I added until you are ready with your addition.  There is no policy like that.  The text I added is relevant because it further describes something discussed in the text.  The fact that you do not like it is not a policy based argument. - Fartherred (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy, you reverted my addition to the article twice, but have not made a policy based argument for deleting it even once. When are you going to answer my argument?  - Fartherred (talk) 14:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be confused. You refer to '("failed to recognize that" elderly people need B12)' as a claim not in either source, but what I wrote was: "The article failed to recognize that vitamin B-12 supplements from a pharmacy are not an option for many of the poor." The fact that vitamin B-12 deficiency results from not eating meat is common knowledge, and so is the fact that the poor often cannot obtain pharmacy supplements.  The fact that I gave a reference for poor people suffering vitamin B-12 deficiency should not in any way excuse the failure of the newspaper article referred to to note it.  The newspaper did refer to a supplement of B-12 being needed by vegans, so it should have mentioned that poor people often cannot get this supplement.  The relevance of the medical article is in documenting the vitamin B-12 deficiency in the poor.  - Fartherred (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is clearly synthesis, for reasons you have explained above. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Specifically, you synthesized the fact that vegans probably need supplements with the fact that the poor are at higher risk for B12 deficiency, creating the logical inference that veganism is not an option for "many of the poor." As you observed yourself, this synthesis was not made by the sources. From WP:SYN: If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. FourViolas (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition is confused
I am still confused regarding the definition of carnism. The leading sentence states "Carnism is the prevailing belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for food and other purposes" I am fine up until "...and other purposes". If the term is not used for the purposes of eating only, then what is the difference between "carnism" and "speciesism". The use of "carn -" is presumably from the Latin, caro, meaning 'meat' or 'flesh'. If this is the case, why is it being used for "...and other purposes."? The dictionary definition is also confusing. It states "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products." Does "consume" mean "eat"? We are all consumers of animal products, but we may not be eating those products. I think the article needs to be much clearer on this. DrChrissy (talk) 21:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources are not completely clear and I think there may not be a truly precise definition. However other reasons for killing animals I can think of that would definitely be considered carnist are fur and sport hunting; further reasons which may or may not be include animal research and euthanasia for minor injuries. Speciesism is much broader than just killing and opposition to "speciesism" may involve objections to things like abuse of animals in circuses, for example. The current definition is supported by sources, but I'll see if I can do some digging and give you a more satisfying answer. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To my mind, it really comes down to whether carnism relates only to eating animals - that's why I mentioned the derivation of Caro as meat. I actually don't see why the term carnist should apply to killing animals for fur - that practice, to me, is an example of speciesism.  Looking forward to further discussion. DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not clear to me. I think the concept is that the alleged prejudices that result from eating meat lead to thinking which justifies other forms of animal exploitation, and "carnism" refers to these patterns of thinking. I'll have to get back to you after I've looked through the sources more carefully to check the exact wording they use. Certainly most of the psychological studies have been about meat specifically, but at least one of the sociologists, Gutjahr, clearly construes carnism much more broadly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, here are some explicit definitions.
 * Joy's book (2010): "Carnism is the belief system in which eating certain animals is considered ethical and appropriate. Carnists - people who eat meat - are not the same as carnivores. ... Carnists eat meat not because they need to, but because they choose to, and choices always stem from beliefs."
 * DeMello (2012): "Melanie Joy coined the term carnism to refer to the belief system which supports meat eating."
 * Gutjahr (2013): "[Joy] identifies the normalization mechanisms that reproduce the violent system of meat consumption, as a perception and belief scheme, which is deeply internalized in the subjects (similar to an ideology), which she calls Carnism."
 * Gibert & Desaulniers (2014): "Carnism refers to the ideology conditioning people to consume certain animal products. It is essentially the opposite of veganism." Several pages later they give us "How then are speciesism and carnism to be distinguished? First, speciesism is broader than carnism. For instance, you can be vegan and consider that no animals deserve to be exploited for food or leather but still morally value the life of a horse more than that of a cow because of their belonging to a hierarchically lower-ranked species. In this case, you are probably not a carnist but, in a sense, you are still a speciesist."
 * Joy's website (2015): "Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the flesh of some animals disgusting and the flesh of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals is not a necessity for survival, as is the case in much of the world today, it is a choice - and choices always stem from beliefs."
 * The focus is clearly on meat, but Gibert & Desaulniers take a broader view and explicitly include leather. From the context of Gutjahr's paper it's clear she thinks that the "deeply internalized belief scheme" called carnism supports other kinds of violence, but she's a bit oblique. The "opposite of veganism" description, which is attributable to both Joy and Gibert-Desaulniers, and the fact that even the title of Joy's book references leather, makes me think that the products which carnism supports the consumption of are a bit more general a class than just meat. I wrote the current version, which makes meat the focus but doesn't specify the "other purposes", because this seems to be consistent with the sources. I don't think there's strong support in the sources for clarifying just what the "other purposes" are. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for gathering those definitions for direct comparison. We could tweak the last words to "…killing animals for human uses, particularly food" if that would help. FourViolas (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good research. I suggest you use Joy's definition as the first sentence of the article making it clear that the original meaning was related only to eating animals.  Then, the second sentence could be, "Later interpretations have more broadly construed the term to mean other uses of animal products.  Then, in the body of the article, you could have a separate section perhaps called "Interpretation" where you just about copy-and-paste the interpretations you gave above.  I think that would keep everybody happy.  When adding to the article, editors can write "According to ....." and we all know what we are talking about. DrChrissy (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reintroduction of "...for other purposes" is, IMHO, very unhelpful. With this phrase in place, I can see no difference between "Carnism" and "speciesism" and I would propose they be merged. If the scope of carnism is on consuming meat, it is a different story and the 2 deserve separate articles. At the moment, it is confusing for the reader to be told carnism is killing "...for other purposes" but then read about the "Meat paradox" (eating meat) and "Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine an apparent paradox in most people's behavior toward animals – that they exhibit compassion toward some species while eating others" (again, eating meat). DrChrissy (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, I've removed it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It really reads better - we can expand on interpretations and a broadening of the meaning after we have a nice, tight definition. DrChrissy (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Unlink "hegemony" ?
@User:Sammy1339 Hi. Why did you unlink "hegemony" in the article?
 * Because it's a metaphorical usage and the Wikipedia article hegemony is about international politics. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a very unusual word and if it is being use as a metaphor, it is likely to confuse. Readers will look it up in WP and will wonder what it means.  Using it in this way so early in the article is very likely to lose readership of the article. DrChrissy (talk) 13:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Granted, but if I clicked on that only to read about dominant relationships among nations, I'd only end up more confused. It violates at least the spirit of WP:EGG. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure. Perhaps you could explain what it is being used as a metaphor for? Maybe there is a more accessible word or phrase. DrChrissy (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure exactly. Pinging SlimVirgin, who added this phrase. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understood it readily as the second definition given at wikt:hegemony, but I've spent a lot of time around feminists talking about hegemonic masculinity and the like. I'm convinced it's the most correct word, but I can see how you might also find it overly technical. Perhaps it could be moved later in the lead (with scare quotes and a citation), or (easiest solution) just wikt-linked as tricky words sometimes are. FourViolas (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Third option: pipe it to cultural hegemony. FourViolas (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how cultural hegemony is relevant. By stretching quite a bit, one might imagine "society" as consisting of, say, both humans and domestic animals, with humans being the "ruling class," so that human supremacism is a hegemony in the Marxian sense. But how is carnism one? Your comment about hegemonic masculinity is probably right on point: feminist philosophers tend to have Whorfian views and abuse language accordingly; the word carnism itself comes in part from a feminist-inspired attempt at re-framing the conversation about meat, as made clear in Joy's 2001 Satya article. It seems probable that "hegemony" is used here in a similar way, basically to say that carnism is a dominant ideology. I would classify this as a metaphor, and I don't think we can link to a definition that really fits. But I'll wait for SV's opinion. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say it was much clearer now that I had read Cultural hegemony! I really think it is such an unusual word that it must be linked to something.  Shall we wait for SlimVirgin's input. DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, responding to the ping, by all means remove it if it's confusing. I'm fine with that. Sarah (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and removed it, because the source uses "hegemonic" to describe the rhetoric of the meat industry. It may use "hegemony" deeper in the article; I'm currently only looking at the abstract, and don't have time to look further, so I've removed it to be safe. If someone wants to restore it, I don't mind. Sarah (talk) 04:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I found a source and put it back with the wikt-link, because I do think it's the precise word which means "belief system endorsed by so many people that it's impolite to question it," but if anyone opposes go ahead and re-remove it—not a big deal. FourViolas (talk) 19:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Tags
The POV and systemic bias tags were added by a relatively new editor in a drive-by fashion, and no concrete recommendations have been made. Barring any suggestion of what additional sources should be represented in the article, can these be removed? I also wonder about the wisdom of having a POV tag on the article while there is an open RfC specifically about whether the article meets the requirements of NPOV. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The systemic bias tag can clearly go in the absence of additional sources, I think. I'd like to see the POV tag stay up temporarily, as it could bring more attention to the neutrality discussion going on at talk right now, with the understanding that it will be removed very soon when the current talk page discussion is over. ~ RobTalk 04:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't like the tags, but I think it would be less than impeccably correct to take down POV while complaints remain unaddressed. We have to respond to accusations of bad faith by Ghandianly demonstrating good conduct. Sysbi is unjustified until someone finds those missing invisible pro-carnist RS. FourViolas (talk) 04:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC concerning this article
There is an RfC concerning this article and the article on veganism. All editors here are invited to comment there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Not neutral - I am commenting here since I don't think it makes sense to evaluate the articles together. Viewing this article as as someone with vegetarian tendencies and a huge supporter and donor to the Humane Society, I say with hopefully little bias that this article is not neutral. Examples: calling it an "unquestioned default", implications of animal cruelty, implying all or most meat eats suffer from cognitive dissonance which then must be "moderated", comparisons to vegans suffering from the same oppression as women/feminism, and generally no arguments "for" Carnism that are not cast in a negative light. 217IP (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 217IP, you are, of course, free to comment here but it would be useful to hear what you have to say on the RfC page. What makes the NPOV status of both articles clear is the discrepancy between the two. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:55, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

4V's copyedit and subsequent discussion

 * Thanks for your input! I'm currently working on addressing some of those concerns, please don't edit the article yourself for a few minutes to avoid a WP:Edit conflict. FourViolas (talk) 02:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * All right, go ahead and take your turn if you like. I will remove "unquestioned default" when I figure out which source(s) support it, as it implies that it ought to be questioned. I toned down some claims and backed off others, especially when sources did not directly support the wording. Almost all the sources cited which aren't intended as activism are scientific studies of the cognitive dissonance caused by the meat paradox, so I don't think we can leave that out while respecting the balance of opinions presented in reliable sources, but there, too, I hewed back to "negative emotions" instead of "moral conflict", and cut language ("attempt") implying most people actively experience moral unease about omnivory. I think it's fair to have a brief paragraph, clearly labeled as vegans' POV, saying "vegans think carnism is really bad, and compare it to what feminists call 'the patriarchy'". FourViolas (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Violas - I think you're doing a great job. I would mention however, that having a section specifically outlining vegan POV seems to fall under WP:UNDUE: "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects". It seems like this section can be removed and simply have a see also:Ethics_of_eating_meat since it is duplicating content anyway. I could see how it can be argued to include this if, like the ethics page, at least half the page discussed a non-vegan perspective. Since this article essentially doesn't include non-vegan POV at all, it seems especially egregious to include a vegan POV section. In my opinion, this article should really be focusing on the discussion of the word Carnism as a neologism rather than trying to replicate the ethics article. 217IP (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We have a lot of material on vegan opinions about carnism, and its place in vegan discourse. I kept this section extremely brief because of the type of concern you cite, but given its prominence in the sources we can't eliminate it altogether. Regarding "unquestioned default," that's not my language, but we have many sources saying essentially that and none contradicting it, so I don't see a problem. Our job is to represent what sources say, not what people expect to see, and we are already bending over backwards to avoid including criticism of the central "pro-carnist" ideas, like the 4Ns, which, please note, are not refuted despite that we have multiple sources, including academic papers with dozens of citations, criticizing these arguments harshly without mincing words. I found your most recent edit a bit unhelpful as it mostly uses more qualified language to say the same thing, sacrificing flow and readability without changing the POV, and contrary to what you suggested on the other page it's not acceptable to violate WP:OR to create the appearance of neutrality. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is important to keep WP:BIASED in mind for the sources used in this article. The sources are not required to be unbiased, but the way the article is written must remain unbiased despite the wording used in sources. In that particular example (unquestioned default) it would be much better for NPOV to include those words as a quote of an author and to not make it the second sentence of the article. The same would also apply to the implication of animal cruelty - that's a better example of something that really might be improved if quoted as WP:BIAS demonstrates.217IP (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources in this article are mostly reputably published academic books and journal articles. WP:BIASED is about partisan sources. The only sources in the article that this guideline could be construed as applying to are The Center for Global Nonkilling, whose book is cited only for two very non-controversial claims, and Gary Francione's website, which is cited for opposition to the carnism concept (albeit from a different direction than some editors want to see.) The two things about you are objecting to are basically agreed on by all the sources, so it would make no sense to attribute them or put them in scare quotes. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:17, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Throwing in my two cents. As one of the people who's expressed neutrality concerns, I actually agree with Sammy that it would be silly to omit this. Acknowledging that this idea is prominent in vegan discourse and is mainly advocated by vegans actually helps check any undue weight given to vegan sources by acknowledging where these ideas come from. If anything, I'd like to see that type of language expanded (which was done a bit in ' recent copyedit). ~ RobTalk 04:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is fine to recognize vegan support of Carnism and the views they share. I don't think it's fine to have a sentence discussing how vegans view their plight in the same way feminists view the patriarchy and it doesn't make sense to me for the vegan POV to have it's own section when this can be easily summarized elsewhere in a single sentence or two. 217IP (talk) 04:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Sammy. I'll itemize, you (and everyone) can respond. I was well aware of WP:VALID, as you may remember from the AfD and elsewhere. However, as Rob explained, we're dealing with a word used exclusively by partisans, and so we need to make more of an effort to seek objective language (not pro-meat; objective) rather than rephrasing without changing the partisan tone.


 * And a moment of self-indulgent whining: I'd be feeling friendlier if you had left the parts you agreed with up and specified your concerns here, per WP:ROWN, so I'll take a break for now so I can edit when I'm at my best. FourViolas (talk) 04:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. "Carnists accept" is not a good phrase, for reasons previously raised by SlimVirgin. It implies conscious endorsement (she objected to the term "endorse".) It also calls people "carnists" which might be read as pejorative. I would try to avoid that unless the term is self-applied.
 * 2. "Vegan social psychologist Melanie Joy" - no way. This is no more acceptable than writing "black physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson" when citing his comments on a racial issue. Besides, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is explicitly about biased statements of opinion. This passage is about who coined the term.
 * 3. I understand "apparent" as almost a synonym of "perceived," and since the papers by Loughnan, Bastian, Piazza all assert this without equivocation, we shouldn't be trying to introduce doubt where there is none in the sources.
 * 4. There's no important difference in these sentences other than a superfluous "in general" and "food" making the second version a little clunkier. This is not affecting any POV issue that might be there as the two versions have the same meaning.
 * 5. This might be okay, although again, we shouldn't avoid saying what the sources say because people think it looks bad. This again is really not much more than a way to say the same thing with more words.
 * 6. We don't need extra invisible comments in the wikitext. I thought the quote was relevant for its historical interest, and because efforts to paraphrase Plutarch would lead to questions about what he really meant. It's balanced by Descartes' position which immediately follows, an on which I had originally expanded a bit. Also though, I originally had this section at the bottom, and I believe you moved it to the top.
 * 7. Moving sentences around often disrupts flow as happened here. This sentence ("For most of history...") sets up Descartes' position, not Plutarch's. Furthermore Plutarch's position is earlier and is more directly relevant to the central idea of the article.
 * 8. Orthodox vs. conventional: there's not much difference but "orthodox" implies they were standard views, not just widely held ones.
 * 9. Your new text is fine here, except I would remove "if not mitigated" as being not exactly what the source says.
 * 10. "Made light of" is just not accurate, as it implies joking or something. They didn't give much attention to it at all - i.e. marginalized, or SV's better word, "trivialized" it.
 * 11. No objection to this (my original phrasing was "color subjective perceptions").
 * 12. I don't see the point of the word "in."
 * 13. All the sources which comment on this agree it is a dominant ideology. Nobody can seriously argue this, and Francione doesn't - in fact he argues that everybody already knows that it's a dominant ideology, and opposes using the word for that reason.
 * I'm sorry if all this is a bit harsh but I didn't see much useful in these edits. For the most part changing all these picayune issues of phrasing just messes up the text and creates non-sequiturs without addressing any NPOV issues that might be there, because you're not actually changing the meaning. (By the way, this is why "unquestioned default" is back in the second sentence now. Somebody had rearranged the sentences so that a couple of them didn't quite fit together - there was a sentence that began with "this" and the referent of "this" was three sentences away - so I restored the original sentence order.) --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's more important to make the language as dispassionate as possible before wordsmithing for flow. I can see how you think changing words without changing facts is "picayune", but when multiple independent editors raise neutrality concerns we can't try to dismiss them, and at least two of the concerned (Rob and 217) thought I was on the right track. So I'll propose retweaks, trying to reconcile both of our rationales.
 * 1 "Carnism accepts that…" (implication: this is the state of affairs, carnism has no prob, objected words gone)
 * 2 "vegan social psychologist…" This I will argue for. Race is a permanent genetic/cultural attribute, but veganism is a choice and a stance. The situation is more like that of " white supremacist author Jared Taylor wrote 'when blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western Civilization—any kind of civilization—disappears.'"
 * 3 Meh, not a huge deal. "paradox" is qualified by "apparent" or "perceived" because some think it can be fully resolved and therefore isn't a paradox. I think "perceived" is blander, and my goal here is primarily to remove surprisingly forceful language only used by one party.
 * 4 The version I proposed differentiates the classes of animals treated differently, making it sound less prima facie paradoxical. Could we combine to make "…who would otherwise oppose harming animals engage in behavior that requires food animals to be harmed"?
 * 5 I agree it's inelegant, but since you agree it's synonymous and it was WP:Controversial let's leave the ugly version for now.
 * 6 [reordering] put "most of history, it was considered natural" first, after Plutarch "Beginning in the 17th century, the mainstream position was supported by…" It's just pushy-sounding to give the avowedly minority view the more prominent place.
 * 7 [blockquote] "…wondering how 'the first man…ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived." It's a great quote, but long and graphic. This preserves the skeleton of his idea and some of his rhetoric while keeping his opinion within the bounds of the paragraph.
 * 8 "conventional views" standardized by whom? I think "conventional" has a more accurate flavor of passivity.
 * 9 "can produce negative emotions" sure, it's chilly enough like that. " attempt as implying it's a difficult task.
 * 10 "marginalized" is a great objective word for "cramming into the edges". "Trivialized" was mine, actually.
 * keep ===denial of animal mind=== change, then?
 * 11 "influence" glad we agree
 * 12 "in" localizes, clarifies that we're moving to a particular universe of discussion. Agree it's barely worth discussing.
 * 13 "postulated" all the sources who accept it agree it's dominant, but some reject the whole concept, so the concept is one postulated by certain activists rather than universally agreed to exist. us v. them is not the point, even though the issue is controversial.
 * Thanks for being willing to discuss so thoroughly! This kind of work is not much fun, but essential to crafting a careful consensus on a fiery topic. FourViolas (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. This is a little uglier, and the meaning is a little different. I'm not getting what the POV problem was supposed to be here. SlimVirgin's earlier objection to my own text also stands, and I think she was right: the sources indicate that this state of affairs is not consciously endorsed.
 * 2. "Married heterosexual supreme court justice John Roberts wrote a dissenting opinion." No. "Meat-eating ethologist Marian Dawkins wrote Why Animals Matter." No. We don't passively put labels on people in order to discredit them. Once again, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV applies to biased statements of opinion, and in that case the person's opinions should be mentioned, not her lifestyle choices or other affiliations. This sentence does not mention a biased statement of opinion: it says that she coined the term carnism, that's all. She did this in her capacity as an academic, just as Roberts wrote his dissent in his capacity as a judge. We don't add labels to suggest bias, whether we think people are biased or not.
 * 3. Glad we could agree on this. (And multiple sources say this, by the way.)
 * 4. That's not quite what the sources say. Loughnan2014 (review article) defines it as follows: "This reflects the “meat paradox”: Most people care about animals and do not want to see them harmed but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and, usually, to suffer (Herzog, 2010; Joy, 2010; Singer, 1975). Despite this suffering and premature death conflicting with peoples’ beliefs about how animals should be treated, most people continue to eat meat."
 * 5. I disagree for aforementioned reasons, but I'll let this one go.
 * 6. I think it should be kept chronological and with the more relevant idea at the top. It doesn't make sense to move from the 17th century to the first. Perhaps this would be less of a problem if the whole section were moved down to the end where it was initially; then we wouldn't be leading the article with Plutarch's position.
 * 7. I'm against producing an original bowdlerization of a famous quote of Plutarch. Maybe it's the snob in me. But might the suggestion in 6 resolve this concern also?
 * 8. This is really extremely minor, but if we said "conventional," we would have to say conventional when, because Singer's views are no longer unconventional in bioethics. This leads us to make another statement seemingly supporting the "anti-meat" position. Sticking with "orthodox," we can avoid that, because the connotations of that word are such that "orthodox" views stay orthodox for some time after they are superseded in popularity. You could change "orthodox" to "the then-conventional" if you want.
 * 9. But we can't just say they're successful - the Piazza paper goes into how some people are and some aren't, to varying degrees.
 * 10. I'd prefer to keep your word then; don't see what's wrong with it. You can change it to "marginalized" if you prefer that for whatever reason.
 * 11. Good.
 * 12. Really it doesn't matter right now. My thinking in omitting the "in" initially was that I have a couple academic sources that are about carnist v. vegan debates (which I have not yet included for NPOV reasons - they are not at all flattering to the carnists) and I was thinking of this section as meaning "discourse about veganism" rather than "discourse by vegans" although at present three sentences worth of the latter is all that's there.
 * 13. I assume you are referring to Francione, who is the one and only person, as far as I'm aware, who could be said to dispute this idea. But he really only disputes the "invisible" part. Anyway, look at the context of this sentence; it clearly refers to how it's framed by certain vegans. That, combined with the fact that all the secondary sources agree on this, makes me think there is really not a need to complicate this statement. Besides, giving extra weight to Francione's views is hardly what those who think this article is POV are looking for.
 * Thanks again for laying everything out so clearly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 I don't see how "justify" is more passive than "accept". How about: "This belief system has different standards for appropriate treatment of food animals (such as cows and pigs in the West) and non-food animals (such as dogs).
 * 2 This might need its own discussion. It's not about discrediting Joy; it's about making clear that the concept is discussed almost exclusively among vegans, which is essential to understanding the topic. Here's some OR, as permitted on talk pages: Desaulniers, Freeman, Perez (IV), Joy, Gibert, Gutjahr, Braunsberger, and DeMello are all vegans or animal-rights activists. That's ''every author' in the first column except for Rothgerber and Flamm, about whose personal life I found no info (and Rothgerber doesn't say "carnism"). That's strong evidence, if any is needed, that "carnism" is endemic to a relatively small, activist population, and we have to find a way of getting that info into the article.
 * 3 Would you be okay with "perceived", then?
 * 4 That's true, but he's a vegan citing three vegans (except Singer eats oysters). He and his sources reject the Carnist Distinction. The other source has a different defn, at least in the abstract, more about denying mind. Still, he's a (contested-neutrality) RS and we're not.
 * 5 implemented, making my Strunkian grandmother roll in her grave
 * 6 &7 Move to the bottom implemented. Plutarch is more relevant, that's true. How about leaving him first and complete (or less trimmed), but emphasizing his fringe status by following up with "However, his view has never gained widespread acceptance" with a citation to, say, a prevalence-of-vegetarianism study with a sentence on historical trends? Wait, I remembered a different idea I had for this. What if we cut the Plutarch to "…arguing that eating meat is unnatural and repulsive despite being considered normal, " and then putting the full quote right there in the reference? That way we can avoid bowdlerizing and put the notable early anti-carnist position first, but also dodge my objection, that giving the only blockquote to a graphic anti-carnist appeal is undue.
 * 8 Singer's views are still unconventional in the livestock industry (an RS tradition we've been ignoring, although it avoids the question of carnism in favor of welfarism, if anything). He practically created bioethics, as a field of people who liked his ideas. This is probably too much fuss about "orthodox", which can stay if other people don't object.
 * 9 I don't think "moderate" implies "fully extirpate", even though the latter is closer to true most of the time.
 * 10 Changed to marginalized, sorry. It's not that I don't agree with "trivialize", but marginalize is dispassionate: "pushed to the edge", not "made smaller than deserved"
 * 12 I put in "in", when we figure out how to include your sources without giving them undue weight we can switch back.
 * 13 I guess I'm importing the argument about whether patriarchy exists (it does, of course, but anti-feminists deny it categorically to hijack debate). But you're right that context makes it clear we're describing what vegans say about it, so I'll assent to leaving out "postulated".
 * It's nice to work these out one by one. Keep up the good discussion! FourViolas (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC) edited 17:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. I don't see any reason to recast the whole sentence; you're removing the idea that this distinction is central to the theory. How about just changing "species" to "some species" to exempt the beetle-cruelty thing that you brought up?
 * 2. In light of your excellent work, I'd like to find a source that makes clear that "carnism" is mainly used by animal rights advocates. I'm still opposed to passive labeling, and will be until we label every non-vegetarian who comments on an animal rights issue as "meat-eating so-and-so." I think in that perspective it's obvious how inappropriate this is. Also, I don't actually have a RS saying that Joy was vegan when she coined the term. I strongly suspect that she was, but all I have is a source in Spanish saying she gradually transitioned to veganism at some time, without specifying when. It's likely this was before 2001, but if not she certainly wouldn't be the first person who's views conflicted with her diet: Peter Singer wasn't a vegetarian until many years after he wrote Animal Liberation, and still is not a vegan. Again, in any case, mentioning people's diets is a bit off the point.
 * 3. Sorry, I misread your last post and thought we agreed on that. I don't see a reason to change it, and per my original comment, since there's no equivocation in the sources we shouldn't introduce any in our text.
 * 4. We can't create an original definition.
 * 5. Condolences to your late grandmother.
 * 6&7. That's a bit of OR. I don't really see the problem as the next sentence does emphasize what you said we should emphasize. "His view never gained widespread acceptance" is just wrong; he was hardly the only ancient vegetarian. We could expand on the Cartesian position, as I tried to do in my original rewrite, but part of it was removed.
 * 8. I think "orthodox" is the most painless way to deal with this; it avoids getting us into another POV discussion.
 * 9. "Moderate" isn't in the article now. I don't think the paper supports "fully expiate" at all; on the contrary it indicates most people still experience some discomfort.
 * 10. That's fine.
 * 12. Also fine, though I hope it's alright if change it when the section is expanded.
 * 13. Good then.
 * Thanks a lot for your hard work. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1 I still think "justifies" is loaded, and right at the beginning like that will set people en garde against POV. Could I change "which justifies treating them" to "and considering it acceptable to treat them"?
 * 2 You're right that it's more important to explain that the term is mostly confined to the animal-advocate community than it is to pry into our authors' refrigerators. I've started a section below to handle that, since it's hard to find a RS outside that community which has bothered to note this.
 * 3 I still think "apparent paradox" is stronger than most people would like, but you're right that no RS directly contests its paradoxicality. So I'll concede this one to WP:MAINSTREAM. ✅
 * 4 Loughnan likes characterizing it as some form of "How Are We Able to Love Animals and Love Eating Animals?" or …love meat but . This formulation, "animals good meat also good" rather than "hurting animals bad hurting animals good", seems also to be the one more often repeated by scholars:, , . So what if we changed that sentence and the previous (half-redundant) one to Joy stated that she wrote the book to examine the meat paradox, a phenomenon in which people oppose harming animals but nonetheless eat meat. and source it to the better interview, Loughnan 2010 and one or two of the above non-Loughnan links? I would prefer that formulation of the MP because it's more RS popular and (or because) it's less pushy, and is more open to the possibility that people can find ways to resolve it—fallacious ways, perhaps, but ways. (Side note—we need to restructure the article to get the lead's cited info into the body and write a new, shorter, uncited, unchallengeably neutral lead per WP:LEAD.)
 * 6/7 I'm really attached to the idea of putting the quote in the ref, right there for people to float over, and summarizing the quote in less inflammatory or at least more concise language. As in "Plutarch, who in the first century CE defended the vegetarianism of Pythagoras and expressed revulsion for flesh-eating. Would you be willing to summarize the quote in a way you think is "directly supported" by Plutarch?
 * 8 How about "popular views"? That's statistically unassailable, then and now.
 * 9 Sorry, "mitigate". ("Moderate" is in the next sentence.) Rothgerber is discussing a lab situation where people are forced to consider the source of meat; I was noting that most people never even do that if they can help it. The point is that, one way or another, most non-vegans spend most of their lives not feeling guilty about their diets, and "attempt" insinuates they do.
 * 10, 12, 13 ✅
 * Thanks for hanging in there! FourViolas (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1. Can you propose a wording that preserves the causal relationship implied by "justifies"?
 * 2. I'll consider this specific issue closed now that you've stated the below discussion.
 * 4. You're right that some sources phrase it this way, but if you look at where the sentence is placed in the article, we do too, and your formulation would remove the "paradox" part of the meat paradox, reducing clarity for those who don't make the connection. Also note that one of your sources - this one - is about a completely different "meat paradox", and the others refer to Loughnan's definition which is the one in our article, and do so in a way that makes the context clear. The source you listed that gives the most complete definition has "Reflecting on the “meat paradox”, Loughnan et al. (2014) note that most people find animal suffering emotionally disturbing and do not want to see animals harmed, but engage in a diet that requires them to be killed and usually to suffer (Herzog, 2010; Joy, 2010; Singer, 1975)." This is pretty much exactly what we have in the article, plus a little embellishment about suffering.
 * 6&7. This suggestion is a bit out of line with policy. WP:MOSQUOTE says "Quotation should be used, with attribution, to present emotive opinions that should not be expressed in Wikipedia's own voice..." and "Concise opinions that are not overly emotive can often be reported with attribution instead of direct quotation." This quote is a perfect example of something that should be quoted directly, and this type of blockquote is more or less standard. See Atwater's quote in Southern strategy for an excellent example of use of a blockquote to present an important, but highly emotive (indeed, offensive) long statement. In both these cases (Plutarch and Atwater) the contents are emotional, and that's specifically the reason why a direct quotation should be used. It's not a reason to exclude them. Your suggestion to push the quote into a note is strange: notes are for exactly representing tangential things which might derail the main text. There is certainly no policy which says Wikipedia should fight against itself by including things and also hiding them from view. Either it's in the article or not, and I think it belongs.
 * 8. Again, this begs a question: popular with whom? Philosophers? The public? I highly doubt anyone else will have a problem with "orthodox".
 * 9. It's really not clear to me that any of the sources say this, though. I don't claim to know how often the average person thinks about where his meat came from.
 * Thanks again and here's hoping we're almost done. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to jump in late, but I've been dealing with an issue with a WikiProject I'm involved in. Hope I'm not too late to contribute something, especially given that I was one of the original "complainers".
 * 1. I think the causal relationship is part of what makes "justifies" sound loaded. A causal relationship leads people to believe that carnists can only justify eating meat through some mental gymnastics, which isn't fully neutral. "Allows" preserves at least part of causality but isn't as strong.
 * 4. I think it's clear in context that this definition is attributed to a specific source, and represents their thinking. I do not see a neutrality issue with the original phrasing.
 * 6/7. However much I may personally dislike the way this quote presents these ideas, if there is a specific quote dating to the first century that acts as an origin to carnism, it belongs in the article.
 * 8. This is not something to get into a major disagreement over, but I prefer "conventional". Orthodox has religious connotations which bring about ideas of righteousness to many people. Orthodox ideas also change, so it has the same problem of when as conventional. I don't see a reason to choose a term with potentially religious meaning over one without.
 * 9. I'd suggest a simple alternative change here. Keep the original text and insert "may", to read as "This can produce negative emotions which meat-eaters may attempt to mitigate in a number of ways". This removes the sense of certainty that meat-eaters definitely confront this (not supported by sources) without making a claim that they don't regularly confront this (also not supported by sources).
 * I'm about to go on a vacation, so this may be a hit-and-run contribution. I'll try to pop in at least once more before I go. ~ RobTalk 04:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I can endorse all of Rob's points. For 4, I've added a sentence so it doesn't just say "Plutarchism was opposed by Cartesianism, which was bunk."FourViolas (talk) 04:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I can agree with almost all of this. For 8, if you don't like "orthodox", can we say "then-conventional"?
 * Contemporary convention is still to assign animals diminished moral status on the basis of their species. In context, we're discussing cultural conventions as much as academic trends. FourViolas (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think we're discussing academic trends - at least I was when I wrote that. And now we get into a lot of fine points - Singer didn't necessarily oppose discrimination on the basis of species, nor did Ryder; rather the notion was that animals are "on a continuum" that includes humans; also, they didn't oppose discrimination for reasons they did see as morally relevant. These kinds of views are not "unconventional" in academia anymore, as your NYT article from earlier on made clear (in fact, decried.) They are, however, still not the orthodox views. I don't necessarily mind using "conventional" but that point ought to be clarified or somehow avoided. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think "then-conventional" is clunky, but get your point. How about "prevalent"? That word makes clear that it's speaking about a specific time, and the "In the 1970s" that precedes it supplies which time. ~ RobTalk 13:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Procedural note: Let's have this conversation in the RfC so it gets exposure to a wide variety of uninvolved editors. Splitting the discussion between two places is silly, and this will also help turn the RfC into something useful rather than a referendum on the current state of this article. ~ RobTalk 05:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Frankly, that RfC makes no sense, it's extremely vague, doesn't suggest any specific NPOV violations, and ties together two tangentially related articles. To split off the whole talk page discussion to another page would create undue disruption and stop us from getting anything done here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The RfC asks a perfectly simple and straightforward question in a neutral way. There is an enormous discrepancy in style and content between two articles on closely related topics.  There is no reason that one RfC should not deal with both. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

"Unquestioned default"
User:Martin Hogbin and User:Lithopsian both objected specifically to "unquestioned default", saying that it unfairly implied the default ought to be questioned. As I explained above and in my edit summary, I agree with them, and the phrase is redundant next to "hegemony" and "invisible paradigm", which are both less rhetorically charged. I am restoring its removal. FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I'll restore "prevailing" then, which is supported by sources including Rothgerber2014, because this needs to be said. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that prevailing is a good replacement. It keeps the notion that this is a potentially widespread ideology without giving the impression that the readers are being instructed to question this. ~ RobTalk 13:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, ✅ with that FourViolas (talk) 14:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Collage images
I have created 2 draft collages as possible lead images. The first is of the meats only. To my mind, this might not be very helpful for the reader to understand the concept which is the meat paradox. So, I made a second one where the meat dish is placed next to the animal it came from. Both images are drafts and can be improved (e.g. I cut the horses head off!) Let's discuss. DrChrissy (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a counterproposal, labeled "3". It's dispassionate, extremely obvious, and avoids too-pushily breaking down the meat-animal barrier (per the article, doing so is prima facie anti-carnist). Since carnism is the culture of meat-eating, it's unambitious and logical to illustrate it with ready-to-eat meat. As with the Doctor's suggestions, it's wide open to countercounterproposal. FourViolas (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern with both your collage and my first collage is that they simply show pieces of meat. These collages could easily be lead images for "carnivory" or something like that.  However, what we are dealing with here is that there are inconsistencies in the way that cultures view animals as acceptable for eating or not. Classification as pets seems to be the most obvious inconsistency, but there are others such as religion and simple repugnancy (e.g. octopus or insects for many people in the West).  I feel we need to get this central inconsistency over somehow in the lead image, but I feel that showing 4 lumps of meat which are not all that distinguishable from each other does not convey this inconsistency pictorially.  Please note this is a criticism of my own suggestion also. DrChrissy (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's true, and I appreciate your willingness to self-criticize. However, I think we're mixing up carnism and the MP again. The lead image should illustrate the topic, not summarize the article. Carnism is simply the belief system of those who support meat-eating; the meat paradox is an interesting and very widely-discussed component of carnism, the part which points out that carnism is sometimes pretty weird. The article, appropriately, reflects the sources' emphasis on the MP, but I don't think it's a problem that the image is primarily about meat, not meat-related cognitive dissonance. I've tweaked my proposed caption from "Humans eat meat from various animals" so it now mentions something salient to carnist psychology, but is still utterly undeniable. FourViolas (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see where you are coming from now! I was thinking that the word "certain" in the first sentence of the article was indicating that other animals were not considered as food.  Would I be right in thinking then that "carnism" is equivalent to "human carnivory"? DrChrissy (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you had it right the first time. Carnism is defined as the prevailing set of beliefs that support meat-eating; in the main this means the idea that certain animal species are food, but it doesn't extend to classifying all animals as food (in any culture, I think). One of the central ideas that was developed in the studies of the meat paradox was that the classification (which Joy held to be arbitrary) itself led people to perceive different animal species differently; e.g. viewing dogs as smarter than pigs, when in fact pigs have some cognitive abilities that dogs lack, such as the ability to recognize objects in a mirror. This was part of Joy's early theories, but the term "meat paradox" was coined later. So the meat paradox (inconsistency in people's thinking about animals) is held to be a feature of carnism. TL;DR: carnism is the set of ideas behind "human carnivory", which include the classification of animals as food or not. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, it's more like "the psychology and cultural traditions supporting meat". It's human carnivory along with its socio-psychological reasons and regulations. Sam collected the scholarly defns above, in . That's why I think it makes sense to illustrate it with meat, and even more sense to do so while emphasizing the way people think about certain meats. It's really a thorny problem. FourViolas (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, Sammy: carnism is the ideas behind meat (among which treating and thinking of dogs well and sows abominably is a notably weird and attentionworthy feature). Given that, do you endorse something along the lines of my proposed picture as illustrating a) meat, b) cultural relativity in food-species identification, and c) cultural relativity in respect/love-species identification? FourViolas (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the middle one. I'm still of the view that images of just meat are not very helpful, as most meat looks roughly the same, so I prefer the one showing the animals. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Please remember that my RfC was about comparing this article with Veganism. I am not in any way proposing that we should include enticing pictures of meat.  My point is that both articles should contain neutral pictures, the purpose of which is to elucidate the few readers that might not know what meat and vegan food look like, and maybe add a bit of visual interest to the page.  We should not be promoting or discouraging anything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have strong feelings about the images and my preference, prior to the collages, would have been the black and white image 1 which minimizes any potential shock. Post-collage, I prefer images that show the animals. It's not likely to be productive to argue about how subjectively appealing the images of food are. The thing is, nobody snaps a photo of food and says "Hey! Everybody look at this not-very-appetizing, but also not-at-all-gross, entirely neutrally-presented dish!" If you insist that type of photograph, you won't have many options to choose from. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sammy1339. Pre-collage Image 1 conveys the principle quite clearly once this is understood from the text. The middle collage showing the animals also does this.  We could use images of the animals interacting with humans to perhaps make this clearer. DrChrissy (talk) 14:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's go with 1, then. Images can be visceral, and the less dramahz the better. I'll put it in captioned "A man eating meat, watched by two pet dogs", and move Clinton down.

DrChrissy, I think your addition to the caption ("…which themselves would be considered as food in other cultures") is okay, but a little long and not completely necessary. People will get the idea that it's kind of odd to be eating one (dead, food) animal while looking at other (live, companion) animals, even if it doesn't occur to them that some people would be happy to eat the dogs too. What do others think? FourViolas (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Slimvirgin I had no idea the lead image had a story behind it! Great link! DrChrissy (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Images
I restored SlimVirgin's lead image as I think this is more relevant as an illustration of human behavior towards animals, which is what the article is about. I really don't care for the Gaegogi image at all, as it lacks illustrative value: it doesn't appear to be anything but a stew, so all of the information is in the caption, which makes it a bit of a useless image. I also am concerned that FourViolas explicitly chose it as the most "appetizing" image found at dog meat, which, while not a POV problem per se, is nevertheless not a valid criterion for picking an image. There are other images of dog meat which are, for one thing, clearly of dogs. I think the one in the Vietnamese market also illustrates an interesting cultural difference in the way meat is presented to consumers in Asia versus the West, and for this reason, combined with the fact that it clearly shows a dog and not just meat which for all I knew before reading the caption might have come from a platypus, I would have picked this one. Then there's the removal of the supermarket image; while 4V was right that this wasn't the most helpful image, as most readers will have seen the meat aisle of a supermarket, the "NPOV" reason for which it was removed concerns me. For the record, Martin has objected to literally every image at this article and veganism, including one of the sun, as being "promotional", and at list of vegans wanted to remove all the images because he found the fact that vegans have faces to be POV. I don't believe we should take these concerns seriously. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the supermarket despite not understanding the objection because it is essential, when consensus-building, to concede the points you don't feel strongly about. I chose the least nightmare-inducing image (I was looking at commons:Category:Dog meat) because


 * a) meat-eating is the topic, not butchering, and most discussion focuses on dinner-table dilemmas and emphasizes the fact that the violence is at a remove;
 * b) choosing one of the other, gorier images felt WP:GRATUITOUS and tasteless, and because "look at that tasty…DOG MEAT!?" is already forceful;
 * c) with MH already criticizing our imagery as too anti-carnism I didn't want to pick an image similar to those used by anti-meat campaigns; and
 * d) (related to GRATUITOUS) I think WP is more credible when it feels less impassioned or inflammatory.
 * Even if you want to promote vegan views, you can't go very far towards the look or language of beyondcarnism.org before people will immediately dismiss the article as vegan propagandists hijacking WP, and that discredits WP and veganism at the same time. I take all good-faith concerns seriously, and I don't see evidence that MH is only here to disrupt the encyclopedia.
 * I know it's not very polite to "call in a debt" by asking one's thanker to chime in, but would you mind explaining why you approved of this particular switcheroo? FourViolas (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC); edited 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, the boshintang may require a caption to make itself clear, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how pardoning turkeys was an illustration of endorsing meat culture until I hunted down and read through the linked article, which is one of the most clearly non-neutral we cite. FourViolas (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, I did not include the dog meat image or suggest doing so. All I said was that, if I had, I would not have chosen the very least informative image. WP:GRATUITOUS does not cover situations where there is a reason to favor one image; on the contrary, it conflicts with your view that graphic images should be avoided because they are graphic.
 * I'll let the bit where you accused me of advocacy go because I don't have the time to answer it. However I'll note that other editors have expressed similar concerns that MH's behavior is disruptive, and his position on images of all kinds has been uniform. I can provide diffs to support this but I don't want to start litigating.
 * I don't believe the dog meat image belongs as the lead image. It's likely to only make sense to someone who has read the article already, and there is no interesting content in the image itself. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my position on the image further (since I hope that is what we are talking about) there are two points in WP:LEADIMAGE that I believe favor the turkey pardoning. One, it is (at least claimed as) a representation of the article topic, whereas the dog meat image is used to make a point about something relevant to the topic and discussed in the article, and two, per your own reasoning the dog meat image may be seen as shocking, which is something specifically to be avoided in lead images, though not elsewhere. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought that a direct illustration of a meat-related culturally-dependent taboo was about as direct as one could get. There can be no literal depiction of a belief system, after all, and it's much more rapidly comprehensible. And as for shock, that's why I don't want the "dog on a stick :'(" image, and I think the pause occasioned by looking at dispassionately portrayed gaegogi is commensurate with that of seeing deportees lined up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FourViolas (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 July 2015 FourViolas (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The dog meat image currently in the article is pretty great, in my opinion. It looks appetizing until you read the caption, which is exactly the sort of image that helps illustrate what "carnism" is all about. It forces people to think about the potential contradiction of the meat paradox; that's exactly what an article on the meat paradox/carnism should do. Having said that, I think that confrontation doesn't belong in the lead in the interests of retaining readers. How many American eaters of meat will click away if the first thing they see on this page is dog meat? Not to mention that there is a specific source that cites turkey pardoning as an example of carnism. As a side note, please remember to sign your posts. There have been a few unsigned posts in this discussion. ~ RobTalk 13:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, the dog meat was mine, and I was pretty pleased with it. I'm really surprised to hear that you think dogflesh is more difficult to connect to the topic than an obscure, jocular, US-specific politicking ritual; maybe someone else would care to chime in on this. I was citing GFFENSE to say that if it's quite possible to illustrate "meat taboos are culturally relative" without being graphic, we should do so. Also, my point a) stands.


 * I very much didn't intend to accuse you, or Martin, of agenda-pushing, and I've struck my comment as I can see how my hypothetical could be misread. It's pretty apparent that this entire topic is a tinderbox, where productive discussions can be rapidly hijacked by POV accusations and counteraccusations, and I'm doing my best not to set off any such fuses. I apologize to all parties for any offense taken. FourViolas (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for striking your comment. About the image, I think the highest representative of American public society engaged in a ritual endorsing meat-eating while simultaneously giving a symbolic nod to the idea of wanting to protect animals from harm is about the most perfect and comprehensive illustration of what is being called carnism that I could possibly hope for. I also think that this image is indeed shocking, because the likely reaction of many readers will be in your words, "look at that tasty…DOG MEAT!?" That seems like a pretty unambiguous typographical representation of shock. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy to chime in. I was about to remove the turkey image myself before FourViolas beat me to it.  My main reason for believing this is not an appropriate lead image is that it is so very, very US-centric.  Sorry guys, but I suspect the rest of the world has virtually no idea what is going on here!  So, we non-US citizens have to scurry away and do research about what "turkey pardoning" is before we even get to start thinking about what "carnism" means. The image also raises other distracting questions: Why is the picture of Bill Clinton doing the pardoning and not the current president - does this imply that Clinton believed in carnism whereas Obama does not? The turkey shown in the image is the highly inbred type that is eaten almost throughout the world, I don't know of a country where eating turkey is taboo - how does this illustrate "carnism".  This is actually one of the few cases where I would rather see no lead image (as a last resort) than the turkey pardoning image. DrChrissy (talk) 14:15, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good point. If you don't know that Americans always eat turkey at Thanksgiving, let alone that the president has annually put on a little turkey-saving circus ever since Lincoln's son Tad apocryphally made friends with dinner, the image is even more confusing and doesn't carry much meaning even after you figure out what's supposed to be going on. @Rob: Thanks for your comment. I have a feeling that the neutral-to-positive tone of the boshintang image will substantially deflect visceral revulsion in favor of a "wait, huh" response.
 * Would it be okay if I conducted an informal RfC by putting the stew first for now, and then asking a few friends: "==Carnism image== Hi, we need a focus group's opinion. Could you tell me what your immediate reaction to the lead image and caption at Carnism is?" We could work from there. The subjective value of images is notoriously hard to pin down once one is used to them. FourViolas (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're selecting the focus group, be careful to avoid WP:CANVASS. In particular, you'll need to be careful not to over-represent vegan voices in this conversation. But the question sounds good. ~ RobTalk 14:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would avoid widening the discussion. There seem to be enough voices here. I've had a look at wikicommons and I'm suggesting some other potential lead images.

DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the images leaking into the next thread. I can hat these when discussion has finished.  I should also have saif the captions are my own words and are totally up for discussion. DrChrissy (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think any of these images really illustrate carnism. I don't see any connection to the meat paradox or the dichotomy between pet and food. While we should avoid a US-centric image if there is a high-quality international example, something that's US-centric is still preferable to something that has little connection to carnism at all. We can always update the caption on the turkey pardoning to better explain the significance. Something like "While it is traditional to eat turkey on Thanksgiving, the American president pardons a turkey each year at the National Thanksgiving Turkey Presentation." Readers from all backgrounds can understand the potential contradiction there, especially if we relocate the image to the body. Readers would then read about the meat paradox before looking at the image, and be able to understand the point being made. ~ RobTalk 15:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding these. This is a hard concept to illustrate. I agree that none are perfect, although #1 presents the dichotomy (but is old and not very visually interesting) and #6 has kind of a minimalist classiness. I actually wouldn't mind more voices, and the people I'm thinking of have never edited animal rights topics to my knowledge and have a good reputation for not disrupting consensus. Could I go ahead with my idea? FourViolas (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)@Rob13 But where is the paradox with the turkey image? Many cultures eat turkeys all year round and, as I indicated before, this is a highly inbred animal which would never be kept as a pet as they can hardly walk by the age of slaughter (only 16 to 22 weeks of age). I actually thought image 1 showed the paradox well.   The man is eating one form of meat and his pet dogs (a meat which he wouldn't eat) are watching him. @ FourViolas please go ahead with your idea - mine was simply an opinion and not a very strong one at that. DrChrissy (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that an RfC is necessary, as we already have multiple editors here and have been nitpicking every little issue in this article. About the images, I would go with 1, which illustrates the concept nicely, or 5, which is simple and straightforward, and at least shows a human interaction with the food, without the gross factor of the man messily eating. The turkey pardoning can go down to the position in the article where it is mentioned, since consensus seems to be against keeping it as the main image. About why Clinton was chosen, that was SV's pick, and while no matter which president were selected people could have raised similar questions, I think the decision to pick the president who was vegan for a time was particularly wise as it minimizes the potential for polemical interpretations. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had no idea that Clinton was a vegan! Sorry, that subtlety was lost on me. How about another approach - We create our own multi-image.  I've posted an example below.


 * DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The turkey pardoning shows carnism by depicting a national event where we allow one animal to go "free" while mass-slaughtering and eating the exact same animal in a slightly different context. As for showing any images of cuts of meat, is that not somewhat inflammatory when paired with the image of dog meat? I think we need to be careful not to make a claim (direct or implied) that eating beef is the same as eating dog. ~ RobTalk 16:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of a montage, like the one at Woman (but smaller). How about four plain images of beef, pork, dog, and horse, ready to eat, with one label at the bottom labeling them and stating that each is eaten in some cultures and taboo in others? FourViolas (talk) 16:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Will get started on it. @Rob, If there was a new belief that cheese should be a preferred food, would we use this image CheeseRolling.jpg.  It means a lot to people in the UK, but I suspect it means very little to people in the US. DrChrissy (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I could be persuaded on a collage of various prepared meats if the label indicates a region where each is eaten. I think that's the most neutral way to do it. Just throwing dog meat next to beef without the context that dog meat is eaten in certain parts of the world could feel to some people like a deliberate attack on meat-eating in general, even if it is not intended that way. The context should prevent that. ~ RobTalk 18:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * We could do that, but it might get complicated. Pork is eaten worldwide, but Jewish people around the world do not eat pork. Beef is the same for Hindus.  Horse meat is not widely eaten in the UK, US, Australia  but is eaten in France, Belgium and many other parts of the world.  Dog meat is eaten in several countries, but do we list these individually in a caption?  Are we over-thinking this? DrChrissy (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Listing a single country or region for each is fine (either that does eat it or doesn't). If we had pictures of pork, dog meat, beef, and live octopus (all prepared), the caption could be: "Pork (top left) is often not eaten by Jewish people. Dog meat (top right) is popular in China. Beef (bottom left) is commonly eaten in the United States. Live octopus (Is there a specific name for this?) is available in South Korea." Anything longer than that would be too much for a caption. Maybe I'm over-thinking this, but my immediate thought as a meat-eater would be to click away if one of the first things I saw was dog meat and beef presented together without context. I'd expect a vegan attack on my choice to eat meat, and I'd peace out of there. Maybe that's irrational, but I don't think it's a response that's very far outside the normal. ~ RobTalk 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If we were to write "Dog meat (top right) is popular in China", I would expect that to be challenged. It seems to be popular in some provinces but not others.  Even if we write "Dog meat is eaten in China", I would expect people to say "But it is eaten in many other countries - why are you picking on China".  It is for partly for this reason that I suggested some slightly tangential images such as the "Don't eat the swans".  They might not get the whole message across (will any image?) but it will be remembered and this hopefully transfers to the article's subject. DrChrissy (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you think anyone would object to the more vague (but equal in terms of context) "certain regions of Asia"? I don't see the point of removing an on-topic image that can be explained in a more thorough caption to replace it with an image that is only tangential. ~ RobTalk 22:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would raise concerns because it is almost certainly eaten in places outside of Asia. I'm not entirely sure why geography is important here.  This is about a belief system which can occur in any place around the world.  We can explain geographical issues in the body of the article, but to try to get this over in the caption of the lead image is, I think, asking for too much. DrChrissy (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My concern is that my US-centric instinct when I see dog meat placed next to beef, in the absence of the context that dog meat is eaten in many places, is to assume the author is making the claim: "Eating beef is like eating dog, and eating dog is disgusting. You are disgusting." Rational? Maybe not, but it is common for people to think defensively when the things they do are compared closely with things they perceive to be very negative. How about getting rid of specifics and going something like "Beef, dog meat, live octopus, and pork are all important parts of certain cultural cuisines." That removes specifics of geography, so should solve your concerns. My major issue is just making sure that the caption appropriately places the image in context. ~ RobTalk 17:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like that caption. It introduces the concept that carnism can be brought into question by intercultural comparison, but does so extremely factually and gently enough that it wouldn't scare people off. FourViolas (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

More sources
Here are some good sources I just found: Ruby/Heine and Bilewicz et al.

We need to continue clarifying (as we just did in ) the difference between the meat paradox and carnism. I think we could mostly just move the two sentences on the MP down to the second paragraph of Attributes, replacing them with a summary per WP:LEDE, and tweak to emphasize that the MP is an especially thought- and research-provoking feature of carnism, the part where animals' perceived "humanity" (intelligence, sentience, cuddliness) conflicts with animal edibility. FourViolas (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Am I correct then in thinking carnism is an unquestioning classification of animals as "meat" or "non-meat" whereas the meat paradox occurs in people who have thought about various attributes of the animal and decided as a consequence either to eat, or not eat, that species of animal? DrChrissy (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not as I understand it.
 * Carnism is the set of all the ways meat-eaters think about meat.
 * Carnism treats some animals as meat and others not.
 * When this seems illogical—when Westerners eat pigs who are smarter than their pet dogs, or when cultures arbitrarily disagree on which animals to eat—it's a paradox, called the "meat paradox".
 * People resolve the meat paradox by telling themselves the animals they eat, which are already chosen for them by their culture, are dumber and less sensitive than the animals they love (also chosen by their culture).
 * Does that make sense? FourViolas (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! I see now. Thanks. DrChrissy (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed text about pre-history of meat-eating.
The text added in the bottom section created a SYNTH, particularly in using the word "therefore" to make a false implication. Mind, it is incontrovertible that human carnivory is natural, and it seemed to be the purpose of this passage to affirm this. However, there are two problems. One is that the implication that this is the reason why eating meat has historically been viewed as natural is obviously wrong, as people were ignorant of these facts until relatively recently. Two, because of NPOV reasons, if we include arguments supporting the 4Ns, we should also include the counterarguments which are well supported by our sources. The particular relevant point here would be to point out the naturalistic fallacy. I'm in no way opposed to expanding the article in this way, and in fact there are good reasons to discuss the "naturality" of meat-eating in this context, especially to debunk complicated nonsense such as appears on the ethics of eating meat talk page. However this should be part of a neutral discussion of all the arguments, and given the way our sources lean, I've been reluctant to do that. I especially worry it will lead to bringing in other, weak sources which creates WP:OR problems, as happened a bit with the Hsiao paper and NYT essay contest. I also think this ought to be done in a different section, while this section should stay on point. There's really not much need to reiterate what everybody already knows: that meat has been eaten throughout history. On the other hand if other editors feel it's important to say this ahead of Plutarch, it probably wouldn't be too harmful. About Aristotle, I think its tangential and worry that including such things will lead to repeating all the information at ethics of eating meat and history of vegetarianism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it makes sense to mention the origins of carnism before the origins of anti-carnism. FourViolas (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It does, but we'd need a source directly addressing that. The implication that carnism arose because humans naturally eat meat is OR. What we can say, in the absence of a source saying where carnism came from, is something like, "Eating of meat has been universal to nearly all cultures throughout history." I'm sure we can source such a statement - my only issue with it is that everybody knows this already, so it's just fluff. However if you think this helps for NPOV reasons, go ahead. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's the kind of neutral-sounding fluff about whose absence people have been complaining. I'll get on it in a little while. FourViolas (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I feel strongly that there should be a statement about how long meat has been eaten for - not everybody does know this and it is obviously relevant. I take the point this could be seen as synth if we link it to "normal", so let's avoid making the link.  By the way, perhaps this section should be called "History".  Regarding Aristotle, I thought this made a nice time-line of the way humans categorise animals - maybe not as meat, but as "different". DrChrissy (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it might make a timeline of the way Greeks categorized animals but obviously that subject is extremely complicated in global perspective; furthermore Aristotle's views may or may not have been widely accepted in his time, I'm not sure. Many of his contemporaries were ethical vegetarians. But I really think all this is tangential.
 * As above I have no problem with making clear that early humans ate meat, but since the only relevance of that fact to this article is to lend credence to the "first N", I think it's fair to then mention the naturalistic fallacy which is pointed out in several of our current sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the views of Aristotle are just as relevant to the article as des Cartes' which we discuss. Neither specifically mention meat eating (as far as I know), more a perceived difference between humans and other animals.  I think the Aristotle info should be re-inserted along with sources you have regarding ethical vegetarianism in his time.  This would be balanced, informative and relevant to the article. DrChrissy (talk) 23:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My inclusion of Descartes' views was a little questionable, as they are not actually mentioned in the other sources. I committed this sin for two reasons: one, to give context to the subsequent section on "speciesism," and two, because so much of the body text was about de-mentalization of animals, I thought it relevant to mention that the people studied came from a culture where animals traditionally were completely de-mentalized. About including Aristotle's concepts of soul, and vegetarianism in ancient Greece, I can't see that there is any reason to do this. Why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals? What about all the intervening history? I'm not qualified to write this, and it's already been written elsewhere, at history of vegetarianism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the Cartesian point of view is important and should be retained. I just think it seems inconsistent to then not include Aristotle.  They both would have been part of the lead up to thinking about speciesism. Who knows, perhaps Descartes developed his ideas based on Aristotle's.  And you are correct, why not include ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Chinese perspectives on animals?  Is this article limited only to carnism in Western culture? DrChrissy (talk) 23:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's just that this leads us very far astray from the sources, doing a huge amount of original research. Maybe someday there will be a book called "Carnism in World History", but for now, our sources deal mainly with the present, and haven't commented on this. There's also the fact that I simply wouldn't know where to begin, and I'm neither willing nor able to tackle this huge problem. If someone did this, it might make a new article, something like "historical conceptions of animals," which this article could then have a stub-section about with a "main article" link. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So do we get rid of both Aristotle and Descartes? DrChrissy (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to keep Descartes, I won't object; if you want to remove it, I also won't object. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)