Talk:Veganism/Archive 10

Possible contradiction
Doesn't saying, "As well as following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of sentient animals." contradict with the 'dietary vegan'? I could be wrong.

External link in image and farming picture
A link to the video of a speech of Gary Francione was present in the caption of his picture. I believe that a video like that can definitely be used within the references of the page, but definitely does not belong to an image caption, which should describe what is the subject matter of the picture.

In the case at hand, a picture of Gary Francione should say that the person in the picture is Gary Francione, and should definitely not be "Gary Francione speaking about veganism, 2009".

I also removed the picture of the pigs, which was later reverted. Fair enough that vegans may claim that farming infringes animals' rights (and I would have rather chosen a picture of chickens in a high density battery). The reason why I removed it is because that picture is illustrating a section titled "Animals killed in crop harvesting". If such a picture is to figure in this page, there should be a relative section/subsection somewhere in the page that deals with vegans' views on animal farming.

In general, I think this page is a bit too biased in favour of veganism, and definitely lacks references on criticism of the practice.

--Japs 88 (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to see someone here who wants to present an encyclopedic article on the subject rather than a promotional vehicle for vegans. I had not noticed the video link or I would have removed it myself. Such links are clearly against WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Picture of THE SUN
Does the article on veganism really need a giant picture of the sun showcasing a coronal mass ejection? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.117.14.5 (talk) 14:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, of course it does not but this article has now become a promotional vehicle for the vegan movement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because every time anyone wants to advertize food, what's the go-to thing? Close-ups of astronomical bodies, everyone knows that! Martin Hogbin continues to demonstrate he has an unusually broad idea of "promotional" when it comes to this topic. I just think it's an irrelevant image, and I raised that point before. --Sammy1339 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the picture is not of encyclopedic illustrative value. Simply put, readers already know what the sun looks like. If a not-too-techical image illustrating an aspect of the biochemistry of vitamin D synthesis could be found, it would be better. FourViolas (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Martin seems to exaggerate with his perceptions of some attempts to make the article more aesthetic. I also tend to agree with FourViolas. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I accept that point. The problem is that when there are genuine promotional issue, as other editors have pointed out, it is too easy to see everything as an attempt to promote veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I started this post, and I think it looks much better now! Done_A_Dizzow — Preceding undated comment added 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Commodity status of animals
Referring to the 'commodity status of animals' in the lead treats vegan rhetoric as fact. Animals are bought and sold but they are not treated as pure commodities. In addition to being bought and sold, many animals are treated with care and compassion, unlike genuine commodities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Commodity. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know what the word means. That does not stop  'commodity status of animals' from being vegan rhetoric. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even housepets, the best-treated of all animals that humans interact with, are sold in pet-shops. They are commodities. Nobody disputes this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Martin, I appreciate what you do on this page, but on this one I think the description is appropriate. wikt:commodity agrees that a commodity is anything movable (a good) that is bought and sold. I think the additional connotation of "object of purely monetary value" is necessary to make clear what vegans have a problem with. That said, do you have an alternative for Wikipedia-voice's description of the phenomenon in question? FourViolas (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to be the only one who understands what I am getting at. The connotation of "object of purely monetary value" is exactly what I have a problem with as  most of the time most animals are not regarded like that by most humans.  To use the term 'commodity status' in the lead presupposes the vegan view of the world.  It is also noticeble that those who claim it is not a pro-vegan term fight to keep the term in the article.
 * Regarding alternative wording, I think that my wording of 'what they consider to be the commodity status' was accurate and fair. It does not in any way criticise vegan principles, it just makes clear that not everyone agrees that the status of animals is 'objects of purely monetary value'. Do you have any suggestions for more neutral wording?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 'Rhetoric' is a bit judgemental in my view. How about 'beliefs' as more NPOV? The whole intro paragraph needs rewritten I think, now that we have all had a look. Something like: 'Followers of veganism believe that we ought not to use animals for food, for selling, or for any other purpose which they believe harms or may harm the animal. Because of this, they seek to eliminate these practices and products from their lifestyle.'
 * My thinking is that vegans do not just abstain from these things, but they believe the practices are wrong, as a group of practices, and not as associated philosophies. While pet shops may treat their animals well, vegans believe it is not right to trade animals in this way. There might be vegans who do not have these (moral?) beliefs, but reading basic sources [] suggests the majority do have them.

TonyClarke (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * This was written quite a while ago by someone with no dog in the fight that I know of. It's well written, accurate, and has been stable. None of the suggestions so far have been as well-written or correct. Sarah (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly agree with SlimVirgin on this. The current wording is the only one suggested which is accurate and neutral - many but not all vegans hold the beliefs described by TonyClarke above; for example Al Gore is a vegan for environmental reasons having nothing to do with these ideas. As to the original point, the suggestion that saying animals are commodities is "vegan rhetoric" is silly; it's an indisputable statement of fact. Nothing needs to be fixed here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fact that Gore is a vegan (per RS) and doesn't have a problem with the commodification of animals is evidence that we do need to tweak our first-sentence definition to fit the way the word is used. I think the phrase is perfect where it is as a quote in the note a half-paragraph lower in the "ethical vegan" description, and if we want to keep it in the first paragraph it needs a weaselifyier, e.g. replacing "as well as" with " and often". I think we should use "commodity" in the lede, but in its current location it incorrectly implies all vegans are ethical vegans. FourViolas (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I read "as well as" as meaning these are two closely-related definitions. I can see how someone could read it the other way, as meaning that you have to both refrain from animal products and subscribe to the philosophy in order to be called a vegan, but anyone who reads it that way is immediately set straight since the next few sentences make it completely clear that this is not the case. --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

TonyClark at least seems to have understood my point, which about the language that we use and the difference between facts and beliefs.

It is not disputed that some animals are sometimes bought and sold (although most are not) but saying that saying that animals have the status of a commodity is not the same thing at all. There are clear, and obviously intended, implications of that form of words which represent the view of many vegans but not necessarily that of the everyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the less sense the intro definition makes. Veganism is not a practice, it is a set of principles or beliefs upon which some people base their practice in eating, purchasing and other aspects of their life. LIke democracy. That is why I started my (stilted and needing developed)  rewrite with 'Followers of veganism...' As it stands the intro definition sets up a standard or principle(s) by which to judge, or identify  vegans. But in real life they may have varying beliefs about the subject, and their practice reflects this. Someone who eats a doughnut can remain an (inconsistent) vegan, but the definition as it stands rules them out. I agree with Martin Hogbin that we should start with beliefs, as determining what vegans see as desirable practice, and as broadly constituting the movement as a whole. It is not a disembodied doctrine, but the sum of what vegans believe, do and (sometimes controversially) promote.

I hope I have understood people's position correctly. I appreciate the civilised tone of the discussion. Looks like a majority of 3:2 for change so far.

TonyClarke (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, 3:3 counting SlimVirgin's views expressed earlier.

TonyClarke (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just for pragmatic reasons, I'm against switching from a stable version of an intro section that was extensively edit-warred over in the past because of points like these, unless there is a clear consensus to change it. Please also note that different editors have completely different concerns, so just tallying them up may not make sense. Martin Hogbin believes the phrase "the commodity status of animals" is POV but has not commented on "as well as", while FourViolas wants to tweak "as well as" but has endorsed "the commodity status of animals".
 * About TonyClarke's position, you can source the view that veganism is an ideology first and foremost to Francione and his camp, but more sources define veganism as a practice than define it as a belief, and when it comes down to it few people would say that someone who doesn't use any animal products, but also has no moral views about animals, is not a vegan. On the other hand, it's certainly true that a majority of vegans have animal welfare, and maybe animal rights concerns. So I think the structure of the first sentence is fine the way it is, although I am open to tweaking "as well as" if other editors think it's necessary. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a little better but it still does not make clear that 'the commodity status of animals' is a term used by vegans to describe their philosophy not a generally accepted factMartin Hogbin (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a generally accepted fact. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you Google "the commodity status of animals" you get almost entirely vegan or animal rights sources. Can you provide a source which shows that the terminology is in general usage outside of these philosophies? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database. See item 1. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep insisting back and forth that your opinion is fact, maybe people will listen! Meanwhile, I've done a crude experiment: Googling '"commodity status" animals' does in fact only give me vegan websites and Wikipedia mirrors, for the first 70 results or so. So, even though I like the phrase and think it's a good objective, definitionally correct description of the situation ethical vegans object to, the fundamental NPOV principle of "don't unquestioningly use language only one side uses" means Martin may have a point. On the other hand, my experiment was not thorough. After all, most sites discussing veganism are vegan sites. Can someone do a better analysis comparing use of this phrase in vegan and "vegan-skeptic" sources? Hang on, I'm off best-practice here. I think I didn't even sign. Anyway, checking sources is the way to go here. FourViolas, edited 18:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course it's an established fact that animals are treated as commodities (please check the commodity markets that sell livestock), just as it's true that most animals are bought and sold and indeed produced for that purpose (responding to Martin's claim above to the contrary). It isn't helpful to question the most basic facts and the meaning of ordinary words.


 * Veganism embraces a practice and a separable set of beliefs: (1) abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in one's diet, as well as (2) following an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals. The opening sentence states this and the next paragraph elaborates. Sarah (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, actually, I hadn't seen Sam's link. That's good evidence that highly reliable sources with no connection to veganism consider it natural to call live animals "commodities". Maybe a RfC or just an informal survey of on- or off-wiki friends could give feedback on whether the joining phrase "as well as" is consistent with the finer distinctions of the second paragraph. FourViolas (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not disputed that some animals are sometimes treated as commodities but that that is not the same as saying 'Animals have commodity status'. Firstly some animals are legally banned from being bought and sold, secondly most wild animals are not bought and sold, and thirdly there is what is missed out.  Animals that are bought and sold are generally not treated purely as commodities.  Unlike other commodities there are regulations in many countries as to how animals can be treated and there are farmers in many places that treat their animals with greater care and compassion that they are legally obliged to. Talking of "the commodity status of animals" is vegan opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Martin, you're engaged in poorly informed OR. Please inform yourself if you want to take part here so that these basic issues don't keep cropping up. This is what happened at BP. Sarah (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you mean. Do you claim that all animals are always treated purely as a commodity? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the word 'commodity' is a red herring, so to speak, and confirms the need to rewrite the lead. I haven't yet heard a vegan use that term. Vegans say that animals are (wrongly) treated as our heritage, or our food sources, or as our pets. It is the belonging and the subjugation of animals which vegans object to. "Commodity status" tends to hide that fact, but yes, in the wider sense of commodity, all animals are treated as commodities. And by the way, farmers may treat their animals with care and compassion, but nevertheless, vegans say, their life ends prematurely at the slaughterhouse. They say that true care and compassion would allow the animals to live a normal lifespan, and die from natural causes. I'm speaking from experience, please don't ask for sources! But this refers to beliefs of vegans, which I hope can move things on a bit form the use of wide and misleading labels.


 * TonyClarke (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, I'd like to ask that editors make themselves familiar with the secondary literature, rather than basing edits or posts on personal views (OR). The commodification isn't a "red herring," Tony; it goes to the heart of ethical veganism. Animals could be living in the best rooms at the Hilton Hotel; if they were someone's property, ethical vegans would still object. And discussing their commodity status isn't an exclusively vegan phrase or concern, Martin; there is a widespread academic debate about the commodication of nature through industry and biotechnology. Please let's have no more questioning of these very basic issues. Sarah (talk) 22:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps removing "following" from the first sentence would fix the "as well as" issue that a couple editors perceive? I just read it again and it does come out a bit awkward; per the wording in the lede's quote of Watson, it seems like veganism is a philosophy, not the practice of following a philosophy. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It now says: "Veganism ... is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in one's diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." Sarah (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a quick Google search confirms 'commodity status' is a term used almost exclusively by vegans, it is vegan rhetoric and not a tern in general use. Starting this article as it is now is like starting the article on communism with 'Communism is an ideology that seeks to prevent the oppression of the proletariat'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant differences in that example are (1) that your text uses a word, "proletariat," which is not commonly used anymore to refer to the working class outside of socialist writings, (2) that it makes a controversial implicit assumption that the working class is oppressed, and (3) that authoritative sources define communism differently. When SlimVirgin suggested that you are engaged in OR, I think that this is what she was talking about. You keep proposing that we modify the article to agree with your idiosyncratic views, but never provide references supporting your position; instead, you insist that everyone else is obligated to provide sources, and when they are provided, you ignore them. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Continuing from immediately and from further above—It looks like most people here are hearing "commodity status of animals" in the UN sense, meaning "animals are things which can be bought and sold", while Martin is hearing it in a slightly stronger way: "animals have the [cultural/emotional/moral] status of mere commercial objects". Can we agree that we're trying to say "vegans believe it is wrong that animals can be bought and sold", and work on a mutually satisfactory wording from there? FourViolas (talk) 19:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, because the article is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not the editors' opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sammy1339,Can you provide a non-vegan source which actually says, 'animals have commodity status'.
 * FourViolas, I do not think it is clear what vegans do want to say. My impression is that most want to say more than, "vegans believe it is wrong that animals can be bought and sold", in fact more like,  "animals have the [cultural/emotional/moral] status of mere commercial objects". Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Before I do that, I just want to re-cap what has transpired in this discussion so far. First, you changed the text of the article to assert that the commodity status of animals was subjective vegan opinion, as if you did not know that animals could be traded. Then you asked for a reference explicitly showing that the term "commodity" applied to animals. I provided one four minutes later. Then you switched to arguing that the lede of an article on veganism should be derailed by mentioning that some wild animals are not actually claimed as property, and introduced a notion of "pure commodities," which, you say, animals are not. Although you have provided no evidence that this concept even exists outside your own head, let alone that it is implicit in the phrase "commodity status," you are now demanding that I provide a reference for the fact that animals have "commodity status," even though you have not suggested a reason why this might be in any way different from a reference that says that animals are "commodities" without using the word "status." Nevertheless, here is such a reference.
 * S. Hillyard, The Sociology of Rural Life, p. 70:"The construction of FMD as an 'economic' disease (a disease that is controlled for economic and financial reasons, rather than purely animal health or welfare concerns) recognised animals' commodity status. The EU policy framework defined Britain's political obligations and protected its own markets."
 * If you are still inclined to continue these language games, please provide sources for your ideas. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. Martin, you've been offered sources, from the United Nations to commodity markets to academic sources, including several in the article. The onus is on you now to provide sources to support what you're saying. Sarah (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So do I, now. The high-quality sources in the article confirm that vegans widely endorse the term "commodity status", whatever they mean by it; and Sammy's sources demonstrate that the term is also used in sources which can't be accused of being vegan propaganda. With Sarah's rewrite, I support the current lead. FourViolas (talk) 01:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is helpful to characterise my objection the insistence in using an ambiguous term as 'language games'. FourViolas, you clearly understand that the term 'commodity status of animals' can have two different meanings, one 'that animals can be bought and sold' which is clearly accepted as a true fact by everyone and 'animals have the [cultural/emotional/moral] status of mere commercial objects' which would be disputed by most people. Why do we use this ambiguous term in the lead of this article and which meaning is it intended to have? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's really not our job to decide which precise shades of meaning the phrase has in which mouths. Many prominent vegan philosophers use the phrase, therefore it belongs in the definition as long as it's NPOV. Reliable non-vegan authors use the term without qualification, therefore it is prima facie neutral language. Objections, given these facts, can only be OR unless a RS explicitly asserts that there is controversy around the term. FourViolas (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is our primary purpose to decide what to write in our articles and how what we write is likely to be understood by our readers. The problem, which you expressed very clearly yourself, is that one meaning of 'the commodity status of animals',  'that animals can be bought and sold' is undoubtedly NPOV but the other meaning of the term, 'animals have the [cultural/emotional/moral] status of mere commercial objects' most certainly is not. It seems that some editors here want to take advantage of this ambiguity by using the NPOV meaning of the term to defend its use in the article, knowing full well it will most likely be interpreted by our readers as sopporting a vegan position.


 * The other problem is that, because the term is ambiguous, it is not a good way so succinctly describe vegan philosophy. What exactly is it that vegans object to; is it just the fact 'that animals can be bought and sold' or is it that they believe that  'animals have the [cultural/emotional/moral] status of mere commercial objects'?  This latter meaning probably gives a better description of of what vegan philosophy challenges but that fact is not made clear in the article.  If this latter meaning is the better one then we should at least make clear that it is a description of vegan philosophy rather than a generally accepted fact.


 * The fact that some editors are fighting to retain this specific wording, which does such a bad job of explaining the subject, makes me suspect that the motivation is more to present vegan philosophy as 'the truth' rather than to give an encyclopedic presentation of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed alternative
How about "the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals." This is taken directly from the body of the article, which the lead should be a summary of. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't actually see how that's an improvement. "Exploitation", like "commodity", has a neutral meaning (mineral exploitation) and a loaded one (sexploitation); the difference is that the loaded meaning of "exploit" is the primary one, while "commodity" (as the UN etc demonstrate) is rarely imbued with moral commentary.


 * However, if other editors endorse dropping the status quo for the sake of avoiding making any assertion (no matter how RS-unanimous) about the actual state of things in the world, I could get behind it. FourViolas (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand what you say and agree that even 'exploitation of animals' could be considered as pro-vegan language but personally, I do not see the loaded meaning of 'exploitation' as being so obvious or so strongly pro-vegan. Also we already have that wording elsewhere in the article and the lead should be as summary of the body of the article not a place to introduce new concepts. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Recommend closure of discussion. Martin can (and will) discuss this for three years or more if he is allowed to continue (he did this recently on another talk page, making the same point for three years in a row, regardless of objections).  There appears to be consensus for the current lead section so I see no need to continue this line of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Civil discussion is how disputes on WP should be resolved. At least one other editor seems to accept my suggestion so I suggest we continue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I respectfully concur that consensus opinion (counting myself as ambivalent) is heavily in favor or the current wording. FourViolas (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits
Hi FourViolas, I removed "using more sensitive techniques," because the paper talked about more sensitive indicators. Also, it meant more sensitive indicators than used in other studies it cited. We can't refer that back to the previous sentence. Sarah (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, I should have caught that. Your rephrasing is an improvement. FourViolas (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's important to become familiar with all the literature on these issues, because the medical sources are inconsistent, or in some cases not actually inconsistent but they appear to be when read quickly. So we need to know, when we find a source that says X, that there are six others saying not-X or appearing to say not-X. Also important not to mix and match sources (see WP:SYN). I'm going to leave a note below about MEDRS in general. Sarah (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS
I'm concerned to see a proposal to base the pregnancy section on news sources. I've kept that section short for obvious reasons, and ended it with advice to consult a doctor or registered dietitian. Nothing in this article should cause pregnant women to take supplements they don't need or that might be harmful given their individual situation. We have to assume that pregnant readers are under a doctor's guidance.

For health claims, sources must be MEDRS-compliant. I've been slowly bringing the article up to that standard, as have others. This means that (for health claims) news sources and primary sources (case studies, clinical trials) should not be used. Acceptable sources include position statements from expert bodies, medical textbooks, and secondary sources in appropriate journals (e.g. literature reviews and meta-analyses). If you go to PubMed, you'll usually find the article type below the abstract under "Publication types," and you can filter your search according to what you need.

Including the PMID link, which links to the article on PubMed, allows others to check easily that it's not a primary source. For example:


 * Gabrielle Turner-McGrievy, Metria Harris, "Key elements of plant-based diets associated with reduced risk of metabolic syndrome," Current Diabetes Reports, 14(9), August 2014, p. 524.

Sources should be as up-to-date as possible. MEDRS recommends no older than five years, which is not always possible, but it's something to aim for. Bear in mind that reviews rely on sources that are older and sometimes much older. The consensus about nutrition has changed in recent years, so be careful not to inadvertently offer the consensus from the 1990s. Sarah (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

'Criticism' section
In conversation with another editor it was suggested that a 'Criticism' section might make the article more balanced. I have therefore created a section and moved tome of the existing critical content to it. No content has been added, removed, or changed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Isn't that recommended against by WP:CRITICISM? Why not keep the information distributed throughout the article where appropriately in context? FourViolas (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've removed it. We've discussed this to death in the talk page archives, and relevant criticism has been incorporated into the body per best practices.  Martin, you know this, so it appears that you are deliberately disrupting this article. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I did previously suggest that a criticism section might ultimately be necessary, but as other users pointed out, it should be done as a last resort, because better practice is to incorporate criticism into the text. I believe we had a consensus to stick to this approach. Certainly it makes no sense to take text out of the article and just shift it into a separate criticism section when there was no apparent problem with the place it was already at. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may be surprised to learn that all of us are not on the same page on this. Look through the archives.  I've added a lot of criticism to this article that has recently been removed.  With that said, anyone is welcome to look at those archives and add back relevant criticism where appropriate as I disagree with the recent deletions. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you point out which ones specifically you think are strong? I've actually had some trouble finding reliably sourced criticisms that gained any traction. The criticisms I've seen published in academic papers (like Davis's bit about rodents being killed in mass by harvesters, which is at the bottom of this article) have been the subject of extensive refutation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm busy with other tasks right now. Everything that needs to be said has already been said.  The two main criticisms are 1) health and 2) agriculture, and I can't see any way around that regardless of who's been refuted.  There is no such thing as a perfect diet or perfect system for food production. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am starting to gather material on a few occurrences of malnutrition in children but it is nowhere close to ready for merge with the main page, see User:Japs_88/sandbox, although for now it is mostly a copy of the relevant section. Feel free to help out. --Japs 88 (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I was thinking the other day that the presentation of B12 needs some changes. It does need to be mentioned that veganism is the leading cause of B12 deficiency (at least in the U.S., I think; I'll look for a source), and the statements "there's disagreement in the vegan community about supplements" and "studies showed no B12 deficiency", while true, make me a bit queasy. I'm going to go look for sources and try to tweak that section. On the other hand including anecdotal cases of malnutrition, even if they were reported in the news, runs afoul of MEDRS which requires comprehensive studies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, fortunately we don't have a large statistics of children malnutrition cases...However, I think it is relevant to the section on "Pregnancy, babies and children" to mention that, a handful of times, it has happened. (Actually, we had a case just last week here in Tuscany...fortunately the child recovered, and he got assigned to social services). --Japs 88 (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it's really not. No more than it would be acceptable to include anecdotal evidence of positive things, or any other type of medical anecdote. (Can you imagine how all the alt-med articles would explode if this were allowed?) MEDRS cautions against using scientific studies and asks for up-to-date comprehensive reviews. Obviously individual case studies or "a handful of times"-type stories are out of the question.
 * I still do want a little bit more detail about the risk of B12 deficiency, though, and I think we can get it from MEDRS-compliant sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 01:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Key et al. 2006, p. 36 et seq, looks perfect. (It's currently only used in the article for a trivial definitional specification.) We'd have to look through all the cited papers, but Key is saying "veg*ns are rarely deficient but often 'suboptimal'." FourViolas (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that anecdotal evidence should replace scientific studies (I'm a scientist myself). What I am saying is that an encyclopedia has a broader audience than a scientific journal. Let me explain my point of view with an example: "Ebola infection is caused by bla bla (citation to scientific studies of the ebola virus). Evidence suggests that this and that therapy may help (scientific studies). Indeed a few survived (anecdotal evidence)." Let us now apply to the case at hand. "The scientific community still debates on whether or not a vegan diet is safe for pregnancy, lactation and infancy (if present, cite a scientific review article with both position analysed). Some are in favour (scientific), some are not (scientific). Some studies associated a vegan diet to children malnutrition and developmental problems (scientific). A handful of cases have been reported (anecdotal)."
 * Let me underline that I don't want to start a religion war on this, and in fact I'm not going to edit the page until I find enough evidence, both scientific and anecdotal. Alas, for those who come from hard sciences, medical papers are sometimes less sound than optimal.
 * As for the B12 issue, | this article may be of help: "Certain groups may have reduced intake, such as those with poor nutrition, older people, or people who adhere to a vegan or vegetarian diet. [...] In vegan and vegetarian groups the rates vary—in the United Kingdom, 11% of vegans are deficient in vitamin B12 and in Ethiopia 62% of vegetarian pregnant women are deficient." This last statement is supported by Nutr.Rev.2013;71:110, but I haven't taken a look at that other paper yet. --Japs 88 (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the B12 issue, since B12 is added to so many products now, I almost wonder if it is as big an issue as it once was. It may be, for example, that it isn't necessarily the vegan diet that is responsible for B12-deficient diets, but poverty.  That is to say, vegans who have enough money to buy products at a store, will inevitably get B12 supplementation indirectly because it is added to so many different pre-packaged vegan foodstuffs.  I mean, you have to really try to avoid B12 to not consume it.  I can see it being a problem many years ago, or with people who tend to live in rural areas or who are homeless, but if you have a job or some kind of income, and shop at a natural foods store for vegan products, a large number of them are fortified with B12.  This wasn't true, however, perhaps 15 years ago.  It is today. Viriditas (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Why did the Bixa orellana image was taken down?
Who took it down and why? Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ben, I replaced it with a vegan-toiletries image (soap). I intend to replace that one too with a variety of vegan toiletries. I just haven't had time to find one, but I hope to do it this week. Sarah (talk) 01:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC
I have just seen the article Carnism which has many editors in common with this article. The difference is style is startling.

This style of this article is positive and supportive of its subject throughout with even a criticism section not being allowed. The Carnism article, on the other hand, presents its subject as a bizarre and improper belief system.

The difference really is quite obvious but below I have given some concrete examples of the differences. We need much wider community input to this subject area.

Pictures
The veganism article has appetising pictures of vegan dishes, flattering pictures of famous vegans, a graph showing the increasing popularity of veganism and a cherry picked picture showing the worst aspects of animal farming.

The carnism article has a picture of some ugly looking meat on supermarket shelves and a picture lampooning the pardoning of a turkey by the US president.

Opening of the lead
The Veganism article starts with a positive and supportive statement, 'Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

The Carnism article presents carnism negatively as 'belief system' and  an 'unquestioned default' starting, 'Carnism is a belief system that supports the killing of certain species of animals for meat. It has been described as a dominant but invisible paradigm and an "unquestioned default" '.

Source and quotes
The Veganism article quotes mainly supportive (vegan and vegetarian) sources; the Carnism article quotes mainly critical (vegan and vegetarian) sources.

Presentation of the philosopy
The Veganism article presents the various types of veganism positively as well though out, logical, and moral. The Carnism article presents mainly the problems, dilemmas, and alleged immorality of its subject.

Origin of the names
The name 'vegan' was coined by vegans themselves as a logal way to describe their philosophy. Carnism was invented by its opponents (vegans and vegetarians) as a pejorative term. It is not a widely recognised word outside anti-carnism sources. None of this is made clear in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed RfC wording
Do the two articles Carnism and Veganism present their subjects in a neutral and even-handed manner? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have the supermarket picture to one intended to promote meat and one of Gaegogi.


 * Both leads are well-sourced in my opinion. "Belief system" is neutral, and the other RS-supported option is "ideology".


 * I agree,, that we need to make an effort to include non-vegan-affiliated sources such as at that article even if we have to risk WP:OR. That said, the reliable literature on veganism and carnism is more vegan-generated than not, so the sources are pre-"cherry picked". According to NPOV we shouldn't impose our personal opinion of neutrality on them, although contrary views may be present as RS prevalence supports. The sources discussing carnism do in fact present it as morally problematic; if you could find an RS refuting Joy's ideas, it would be a valuable addition. (Heaven knows I've done my best.) Otherwise, WP:NPOV is not negotiable.
 * FourViolas (talk) 12:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just want to say I think your analysis here is spot-on: "That said, the reliable literature on veganism is and carnism is more vegan-generated than not, so the sources are pre-"cherry picked"." I think this point may be forgotten by Sammy in her creation and defense of the Carnism article, since he or she has argued there is no bias in the sources used. 217IP (talk) 16:35, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I think it would be very valuable to find better sources explaining who uses the term and how; it's important to note that there's a reason we're mostly citing vegan partisans in discussing this belief system, but it would be OR to put knowledge we've acquired by searching JSTOR and Google into the article. FourViolas (talk) 16:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * How did we come to this notion that we are "mostly citing vegan partisans"? The article cites the reputably-published work of 20 or so academics, which taken together has earned over 200 citations. Do we really believe that all of these people are vegans? Where is this coming from?
 * There are of course lots of partisan sources that use the term "carnism," and when I was doing the rewrite that became the foundation of the current version of the article, I took pains to avoid them in favor of quality academic sources. It's not fair to just throw around the word "bias" because you don't like what the research papers said. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think we can't make a consensus that's acceptable to you, go ahead with the RfC. But remind folks that "neutral" is defined by RS consensus, not gut opinion. FourViolas (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to do an RfC, but it would be helpful to other editors to know what you are requesting comments on. Your proposed question does not raise any specific objection. See Writing_requests_for_comment. Also, I have to echo FourViolas in reminding you that NPOV is about balancing sources, whereas all of your objections so far have been about your subjective opinions and have never been supported by sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Writing_requests_for_comment starts, 'The opening comment should contain a straightforward question which is as specific as possible'. My proposed question is, 'Do the two articles Carnism and Veganism present their subjects in a neutral and even-handed manner?',which is exactly what is asked for. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It makes no sense to compare those articles. Veganism is a well-developed, well-referenced article, which has existed for 14 years, on a topic of increasing interest to reliable sources. Carnism is a new article, not yet developed. The two topics are only connected via meat-eating, but they are very different. Veganism describes a diet and philosophy. Carnism is a psychology article that describes what its proponents say is a hidden ideology. Forcing a comparison feels like another attempt to attack this article. Sarah (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of Sara's comment. Ben-Yeudith (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC
Do the two articles Carnism and Veganism present their subjects in a neutral and even-handed manner? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. This seems a bit of a pointless RfC. If the answer it gets is 'no' it isn't really going to achieve anything. --Michig (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hope that it would cause editors to work together to redress the imbalance. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)]


 * Specification: do the articles adequately reflect the views published in reliable sources about their respective subjects, giving due weight to each? If not, which sources have been overlooked or overused?

FourViolas (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is not just the views of sources that is the problem, it is the way that they are presented. Sources do not tell us what pictures to include or what language to use; we have to make those decisions ourselves and that should be done on a neutral way.  The complete contrast in style between the two articles is obvious to anyone and should make it clear to editors that there is more to NPOV than finding sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * as a courtesy to the FRS volunteers, could I remove the tag until we (the talk page locals) can find consensus on what we want comment on? It's not very polite to haul them over here to watch us disagree with your choice of question. FourViolas (talk) 20:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the question is fair relevant and presented in a completely neutral way fully in accordance with Writing requests for comment. If the RfC establishes that the articles are not neutral and even handed we could discuss where to go from there, possible having another RfC as suggested on the RfC advice page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No I have always asserted that this article shows a bias towards supporting veganism but the difference in sourcing, content, and style between the two articles is enormous. Both support the vegan/vegetarian POV.  I give details in the section above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: These comments are specific to Carnism. It's not as simple as a !vote, in my opinion. By design, carnism is going to be talked about by the more extreme vegan proponents, because it is an attempt to explain why people support an (in their view) immoral system. I think the editors of carnism have certainly brought that article a long way from where it started, which was worthy of a nuke. They've made great efforts to achieve neutrality, based on the talk page. They haven't been entirely successful. There are subtle choices of words that enforce the idea that carnism is immoral. Things like use of the phrase "enabling strategies" or stating "carnists may also moderate their moral discomfort ..." imply that those who eat meat are in the wrong and either accept that deep down or intentionally do not address the issue. You're not going to find any sources that defend carnism itself, because carnism is such a fringe theory/idea that it isn't worthy of being addressed in mainstream reliable sources by those that support meat-eating (which, to be clear, is most of humanity). There are two things that editors should be able to do to help make this more neutral. First, copy edit to remove biased phrases like those I mentioned earlier. It may be the wording reliable sources use, but those reliable sources are admittedly pushing a specific POV. We can do better. Second, there should be a prominent link to ethics of eating meat, which is more neutral and is certainly relevant to carnism. By prominent, I mean that it should be located in a "see also" category or possibly in a hatnote somewhere in the article. ~ RobTalk 22:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your take, Rob. I agree with your analysis and suggestions, with the cavil that it's hard to tell (indeed, almost all of the article's sources' authors are making a living trying to determine) why carnism isn't often "addressed in mainstream media", and that it might not be as simple as mass agreement that the ideas are unworthy of consideration. I'll try some neutrality copyediting, and clarifying reliability-affecting factors (" vegan social psychologist Melanie Joy") as Martin mentioned. FourViolas (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I just want to reiterate that I don't doubt that everyone working on this article is trying their hardest to make it neutral. It's just extremely difficult to take a contentious issue with reliable sources that only support one POV and create something neutral. ~ RobTalk 01:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that. AGF is precious. FourViolas (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * did a large copyedit for neutrality that has since been reverted for more discussion. See . One specific issue this RfC should address is whether this copyedit is appropriate. reverted with the comment "rv. These edits need to be discussed on talk in more detail. Changing language to reflect people's expected POV, when this conflicts with sources, is not a good idea, per WP:VALID". I'll comment below this so this first bullet is fairly neutral. ~ RobTalk 04:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevance of the carnism article is that it shows how this article could look if it took the opposite POV for that which it currently does. Both articles contain properly sourced content.  The POV is in the way that the content is selected and presented in both articles. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * FV's copyedit was a huge step in the right direction. I think it's as close to neutral as we can get the article given the lack of reliable sources specifically addressing pro-carnist points of view. WP:VALID does not apply to this situation; that policy has to do with not presenting inaccurate minority viewpoints as fact. A claim that this article should be skewed towards veganism because arguments for eating meat are so false as to be comparable to flat earth theory borders on the absurd. On the other hand, WP:BIASED states that non-neutral sources can be reliable, but that does not remove the requirements of WP:NPOV. That's what we're dealing with here, and FV's copyedit moderates language to be less inflammatory/biased. It alters no information. I support adopting this copyedit in the strongest terms possible.~ RobTalk 04:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rob has accurately described what I intended to do, and hope I did, with the copyedit. With apologies for decentralizing the discussion, Sammy and I are having an excruciatingly detailed (but productive!) back-and-forth in Talk:Carnism. FourViolas (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Specific to Carnism. I suspect it is inevitable that this article will always feel somewhat biased. The term Carnism was coined as a pejorative by someone with a point to make, someone who felt that the "unquestioned default" position needed to be questioned.  Almost all research and discussion on the subject is made by people with a particular position on the subject, while the vast majority don't care much and mostly haven't even heard of the term. Hence almost all sources on the subject themselves suffer from an "unquestioned default" viewpoint which is not the mainstream viewpoint.  As an example, the whole subject, and hence the article, makes an assumption that people are suffering n internal moral crisis because food animals are subject to cruelty.  Research follows into avoidance and coping techniques, which makes it all sound very academic and sensible, but completely misses that most people don't think slaughtering animals for food is cruelty.  Maybe they'd struggle to do it themselves in our modern society, and no doubt there are people who struggle with the idea of eating their pet bunny, but I see a huge risk of strawman arguments. On the whole, the article doesn't feel entirely balanced to me right now (July 14th).  It got pretty close after the initial rant was rewritten, but I think it has slipped back.  Lithopsian (talk) 13:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point, that's worth mentioning even though it's largely ignored by our sources. Could you please find a strong source saying "most people rarely or never problematize their omnivory" and incorporate it? FourViolas (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not, because that claim is contradicted by the empirical studies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect you are right that people may always feel like that article is biased no matter how we write it. I just want to address a couple points you raised. You suggested that the investigators missed the point that most people don't regard slaughtering an animal as cruel; actually though, this is relative. Slaughtering dogs and cats is illegal under many anti-cruelty laws like the Florida Anti-Cruelty Act, and polls also indicate that most Americans find horse slaughter cruel. So, whether most people perceive slaughter as cruel is species-relative, which is largely what the article is about. Granted, not everyone experiences dissonance in their views of animals: a Gallup poll has shown that for the last 12 years a consistent 3% of Americans don't believe animals deserve protection from harm. So at least those people, and probably many others besides, don't experience any internal conflict. However, we have data on this: multiple studies, cited in the article, empirically tested whether people experience cognitive dissonance about meat, and all confirmed that most people do. All the RSes agree on this, and I don't think we can do much about it; we present empirical facts as empirical facts. You also said you think that the research is conducted by biased investigators; I don't think there is evidence of this. Certainly Joy, the originator of the term, is an animal advocate, but research on the topic has involved many people, and has been published in peer-reviewed journals and widely cited. Undoubtedly at least a couple others share Joy's perspective, but I don't see that we can assume they all do. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll copy my work from Talk:Carnism:
 * 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 lives I found no info (and Rothgerber doesn't use the word "carnism"). That's strong evidence that "carnism" is endemic to a relatively small, activist population, and we have to find a way of getting that info into the article.
 * This fact does not invalidate their data or analysis, but it does mean we have do some combination of taking them with a grain of salt and, better, giving the reader this information so they can add their own salt to taste. FourViolas (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Was just about to post that. Good work there. However that's all of the sociologists, and none of the psychologists who did the studies. I suspect they're a different crowd. (Also Rothgerber uses "carnist" - when ctrl+Fing for -isms, always leave off the final m.) In light of this, though, I'm not opposed to making clear in the article that the term is primarily used by animal rights advocates, if we can find any sort of passable source saying that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Race you to it! I suspect you're right. Also, ygm. FourViolas (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Rothgerber has done a lot of impeccable studies on this and related issues. FourViolas (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment. This RfC has an agenda, and I haven't bothered figuring out what it is. But I do have a comment. The Carnism article seems to have been written by vegetarians who do not understand meat=eaters, and it shows. For example "they [meat-eaters] exhibit compassion toward some species while eating others". I am a meat-eater, and I am much more likely to show compassion to a sheep than to a fox. I believe this is typical of English-speaking-culture meat-eaters. Maproom (talk) 07:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In this particular example, "showing compassion" means "not eating", according to the argument, which I think you missed. I'm curious, have you read Cloud Atlas or seen the film? The book and film perfectly illustrate the carnist argument in many respects. Of course, it's not an easy book to read, nor is it an easy film to watch.  However, if you're interested, this may be the easiest way for you to "get" the argument in a sort of "a-ha" moment. Viriditas (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As its proposer, I can tell you that the RfC does of course have an agenda but it is not intended to be any kind of secret. The agenda is NPOV.  If you look at the way content has been selected and presented in the two articles you will see that, in this article, the article's subject has been presented in a very positive way.  In the Carnism article the subject has been presented in a negative light.  I point out some of the biggest differences in the section just above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If there is any kind of "positive" or "negative" view here, then that is directly from the source literature, not from editors. You almost sound like you are promoting a fringe POV. By way of analogy, there are editors (and fringe sources) that promote the "positive benefits" of climate change and the "negative risks" of climate remediation.  We tend to avoid and ignore those sources (and claims) because they can be traced directly to unreliable sources.  If our most reliable sources present the topic in a "positive" or "negative" light, then that is exactly the kind of framing we use.  You can't avoid the fact that eating animals has a negative impact, for example, on human health and the environment, and that these negative impacts outweigh the benefits.  The fact of the matter is, the positive and negative POV you describe is inherent in the very literature used as sources, which means both of these articles are NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 08:30, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There's an essay, WP:MAINSTREAM, which extends this argument: favor scrupulous WP:V over gut-intuition WP:NPOV. FourViolas (talk) 16:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas: So you are saying that the quoted statement is vacuous. Irrelevant comment follows. I collect atlases, and so often come across Atlas Shrugged and Cloud Atlas listed on Ebay. I doubt anything will ever persuade me to read the former. But I have sometimes considered reading the latter. You have persuaded me: I shall do so. Maproom (talk) 09:10, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Viriditas, your comment shows exactly what the problem is that I am trying to address. In this article, the sources are mainly pro-vegan, chosen by pro-vegan editors here. In addition to the dominance of pro-vegan sources the style and presentation of the article are positive.  Carnism, on the other hand, is a pejorative term coined by vegetarians to describe most of the word's population, who eat meat.  Obviously, therefore, the vegetarian sources used describe it negatively.  The article presents the subject as if 'carnism' is neutral and generally accepted term which everybody disagrees with.  Please see my detailed comments above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:19, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Martin. We have heard you: you think the articles are not written from a median layperson's POV, because the sources used in the articles are not. You are saying that's because the editors who work on these articles are pro-vegan, and are cherry-picking pro-vegan sources. I now strongly encourage you to start helping to FIXIT. At Talk:Carnism we've been putting a lot of effort into pushing the POV as far towards what you consider neutral as we can without violating WP:V, and at Talk:Carnism we're doing our best to allow ourselves to clarify that the term is endemic to a population with a particular opinion. Your help in achieving consensus by proposing specific changes acceptable to you and finding sources to support your position would be appreciated. FourViolas (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would love to help build consensus, in both articles. You say you have heard me but you are not listening, that is why I am trying to get more editors involved. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear you don't feel listened to. Each of your concrete concerns about carnism from above this section has been addressed, or is in the process of being addressed, either in the article or on the talk page. If you have further specific concerns:
 * About cherry-picking Accusing other editors of selecting a biased sample of sources for ideological reasons is a serious charge. If you can find high-quality sources which you feel have been unfairly omitted, please bring them to talk. There's a whole section looking for a source for a particular concern you've brought up repeatedly.
 * About misrepresenting the sources we have Go to the talk page, paste quotes from the sources which are being abused, and we'll fix it. If you have concerns about specific wordings, it's highly likely that Sammy1339 and I are hard at work compromising at Talk:Carnism (which please read through), and if we aren't discussing it already we will be once you bring it up. Your input is welcome, if it comes with respect, civility, and sources.
 * About photos I didn't see the problem with the "meat aisle" photo, but I've replaced it with an appetizingly presented image of gaegogi, which is tasty or not depending on cultural classification, which is the point of the article.
 * About facts and opinions you know to be The Truth® but which are mysteriously absent from all RS I shouldn't have to tell you you're out of luck. FourViolas (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to close. RFC question fails to address a specific issue or problem and is too broad for an RFC.  I suggest Martin take his concerns to the NPOV noticeboard. Viriditas (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No The carnism comes across as biased. For example, phrasing at lede sets a framing association of killing, hegemony, and animal cruelty jammed in before the mention of more broadly the use of animal products.  It could start with 'eating of meat or use of animal products' to finish definition before giving opinions.  Also, such should avoid using wiki voice, and lead with either sourcing or clarity of it being a POV -- 'they term was coined by ' or 'It has been criticized as' Markbassett (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is why it's kind of annoying to discuss a page elsewhere than on its associated talk page or a WP:CENTRALized talk page. Mark, please take a look at Talk:Carnism. You may be particularly interested in Talk:Carnism. FourViolas (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we all agree the carnism article is biased. The article appears to have decided to focus on a bogus psychological agenda right from the start. The thing we should discuss is what to do about it. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think the article is as fundamentally biased as you're portraying it, but if you wish to discuss its neutrality, feel free to do so on its talk page. We've been dealing with many subtle neutrality issues there for a while now. ~ RobTalk 03:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If anyone is truly interested in "bias" on the topic of meat eating, have a look at the average story about meat planted by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association in the media on a daily basis to convince people about how great it is to eat meat. They actually belong to a group called the Meat Promotion Coalition.  And even if you don't want to eat meat, meat production depends on welfare, to the tune of more than 30 billion in tax dollars, hiding the true cost of meat to the consumer.  Don't talk to me about "bias". Viriditas (talk) 04:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the WP:TIGERs away on all sides. Most industries have lobbying groups, most of the developed world has large agriculture subsidies, and animal rights advocates and meat industry advocates release conflicting propaganda. There's more than enough material there for some top-notch flame wars, but we're here to build an encyclopedia instead. To that end, let's restrict ourselves to specific, RS-based discussion of the article on its talk page. FourViolas (talk) 05:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Carnism" is itself a response and observation of the unconscious bias in favor of eating meat. It is nothing but an attempt to explain and describe this bias.  To call this explanation "bias" is a culture bound response mechanism.  Most people, as carnist discourse points out, grow up believing that meat eating is natural.  This is the bias. Viriditas (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No not particularly. As a vegetarian, in my view it shows that both articles have been written mostly by non-meat-eaters and therefore have a systematic bias. The Carnism article is worse than Veganism. However neither are terribly biased (I've seen a lot worse) but it is apparent and could be improved upon.Levelledout (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for your input. At talk:carnism there are several live neutrality discussions, including one on whether to make clear that "carnism" is primarily used by vegans and another on image selection. Your input would help. FourViolas (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC)