Talk:Vegaphobia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Original research

The article contains a number of examples allegedly illustrating discrimination against vegans. Such examples must come from reliable sources which explicitly describe them as vegaphobia or similar. Otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH and opinions of a wikipedian, which is inadmissible.

Please review the articles are remove statements which do not conform wikipedia policies about citing sources and original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible (Italianised?) English

In a section that deals only with women in Italy, the terms "his companions" and "his diet" are used - so who is the "he" supposedly referred to? The Italian words for "his" and "her" are the same, and this suggests that whoever wrote this doesn't know English anything like well enough to be writing in it. A little later we're told that a woman who "opened a vegan activity" (?) in a market had her "banquet" "overthrown". Not only should "overthrown" read "overturned" (you can only overthrow a government or ruler), but "banquet" means a sumptuous meal, not - as clearly intended here - a market stall. And yes, the Italian word "banchetto" can have either meaning. Here the English is quite simply incomprehensible - looks like someone made the elementary mistake of using Google Translate, which repeatedly produces such gross errors.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC) On reading more of the article, I see it's full of bad English, as well as a misspelled link ('Tiblisi'). Copy-editing may not be sufficient if, as in the cases just mentioned, the errors are due to influence from another language which the editor may not know. Whoever wrote this simply should not be posting Wikipedia articles in "English"!213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Frivolous tagging

@Kleuske: why are you buying into frivolous tagging and nonsense of the IP? IP claims that this article has POV, subject lacks notability and is a hoax. Reliable sources disagree.[1][2][3][4] You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging unless you have genuine concerns and before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here. There maybe problems with WP:OR, but template for that is already there. MapSGV (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is complete and utterly bullshit. But hey, we live in 2018, everyone gets their piece from the victimhood cake, right?91.64.41.47 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

How about we try to make this a better article instead of having an edit war with anonymous accounts? Clearly veg*ns have not been enslaved or whatever, but just because someone else had it worse doesn't make whatever happens to you right. There are clear examples of prejudice cited in the article, although perhaps could use more English-language references. Nessie (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV: Let's start at "buying into frivolous tagging" I disagree with the "frivolous" part and I'm not "buying into" anything. Your source indicate it's a neologism coined in 2011 and yet the article has no problem including Greek comedies about the Pythagoreans, based on a publication in "researchgate", which (AFAICT) does not mention the Pythagoreans or Pythagoras. Even if it does, we need more than a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source.

POV-check

To me the article seems to have a distinct POV, since it does not hesitate to include the works of Greek comedians (5th century BCE) under the term of a 21 century (CE) neologism. Ditto on the inquisition and the nazi's. The article posits "vegaphobia" as a fact rather than an opinion, which, of course it is. Since many of the so-called instances are sourced to articles which do not mention the term at all, at the very least we have a case of WP:SYNTH and (ipso facto) POV.

Notability

Many of the sources are selfpublished articles, other sources do not mention the term at all. A quick search does not reveal a wealth of sources (rather a dearth) of sources, which makes questioning the notability a reasonable stance.

hoax

This is about the only point I could agree with, since, sadly, this term seems to be coined in all earnestness.

That leaves us with the uncontested tags, which designate this article as a mess of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POV, unworthy of Wikipedia.

The main point is that you do not remove tags without discussing them first. See Help:Maintenance template removal. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I've been bold and kicked out all the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR based claims, which leaves us with "someone coined the term". Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske:, I don't think the sources of specific instances need to mention the exact word 'vegaphobia.' There just needs to be some sources that say that vegaphobia is the term for discrimination/prejudice/etc. against veg(etari)ans. Then any incident cited that shows prejudice against veg*ns can be included. Not ever instance of, say, Islamophobia, has the perpetrators saying "This is an aspect of my Islamaphobia" or using the word at all. Nessie (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@NessieVL: That, pretty much, flies in the face of WP:SYNTH:"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". You basically claim the right to determine whether or not some incident is an instance of "vegaphobia". That's not how Wikipedia works. Kleuske (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: See third point listed at Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. Article has issues and I was not denying that, but concerns is with frivolous tagging that I disputed. IP is engaging in disruptive editing and his motive is to get article deleted which will never happen. It is no more non notable or a hoax if it has been covered by reliable sources like Springer, Routledge, and but your earlier edit was restoring those tags. Article can either be subjected to maintenance tags about POV or original research, not both.

@NessieVL: good point. Maybe Kleuske should mention how Wikipedia is maintaining articles on Islamophobia (Islamophobia, Islamophobic incidents) if it is necessary for the source to always make exact mention of the term. — MapSGV (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a reason why that islamophobia-argument doesn't work. It's no more than whataboutism. On the other issue, see my points above. Since I have removed a lot of the offending content (especially the WP:SYNTH-stuff) some of the tags may be superfluous by now. They weren't when I reverted. Kleuske (talk) 11:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

PS. The "exact term" isn't required, but at the very least the source should state an incident happened because the victim was a veg(etari)an. None of the claims I removed had sources that said that. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske:, i don't think WP:SYNTH applies here. all that would do is force two articles, one with sources specifically citing the term vegaphobia and another for anti-veg*n discrimination that did not reference the term. I think we shouldn't get hung up on a neologism. And regarding your PS, you removed many incidences that mention anti-veg sentiment as motivation, such as the attack in Tblisi. I agree the Italian sources are not great, but the NYT specifically says "A group of people who prepared an anti-vegan provocative action, entered and started to be violent." That was not difficult to find, and I'm sure most of the other incidents mentioned could easily find supportive anglophone sources. Let's just go where the sources lead us and not go all the way to one end or the other. Nessie (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH always applies (part of WP:OR, which is part of the second pillar of Wikipedia) and it makes no difference whether it's one article or two. You cannot combine sources to reach your own conclusions. That's not what Wikipedia is for, that's what Tumblr is for. This article does not state the restaurant was attacked because it was vegan or because it was seen as leftist or gay-friendly. And since the NYT does not take the proprietors word for it, neither should Wikipedia. In fact, the article places the incident in a broader context of the liberal west encroaching on the former USSR, which is more plausible an explanation than "vegaphobia", since no sane person gives a shit whether or someone eats meat or not.

You're right to say we should not get hung up on a neologism that's hardly in use. Hence my suggestion to merge it into veganism, since the term "vegaphobia" is marginally notable at best. Kleuske (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Notable term that has been described by reliable sources I gave you in my initial comment. Term has nothing to do with content expansion, you should only observe elements that contribute to Vegaphobia. — MapSGV (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV:You must be joking. Please tell me you are kidding... It's not found anywhere outside academia and vegan circles, so I'm rather skeptic about that "notability", given the fact that neologisms re a dime a dozen, nowadays. Kleuske (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

See [5][6][7], they are academic sources and describes the term. MapSGV (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Good grief... The mere menton of a term in an academic paper does not make it notable. Especially if one of those sources puts the term in quotes. Kleuske (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Critisism

For the article to be objective, a critisism section must be added, otherwise it can and will be viewed as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:C438:A847:3038:A600:3D99:2D71 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Since the term is, at best, marginally notable, I suggest we merge the article into the main article "Veganism". Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• @Kleuske: I kind of disagree. There seem to be a lot of sources in the article. I'm also finding sources outside of the article, like [8]. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:59, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I’m anything but impressed by the number or quality of said sources. Kleuske (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I disagree too, vegaphobia is a recent but distinct topic, although there is a lot of work remaining to do on this article 145.226.158.84 (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Accerniglia.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"speaks of vegans and anti-peoples"

What's anti-peoples? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I got rid of it Joereddington (talk) 12:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this article is caused by mistranslations.

In https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vegaphobia&diff=prev&oldid=836395625, I took out a quote because it's sourced to an english translation of an italian document, that is a section of a document that is originally in English (I think). In any case, the original 'Queer Vegan Manifesto' is here: http://animalstudiesrepository.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=acwp_aafhh and doesn't mention vegaphobia at all. Given the rest of the writing in the article, I'm willing to belive that this is a term that is only used in Italian... Does that make sense to people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joereddington (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I've done a fairly complete rewrite today. A great deal of the sources evaporated under scrutiny. I'm coming around to the idea that the term really isn't that notable in English at least. Joereddington (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your efforts are very much appreciated. I came to the same conclusion earlier. Kleuske (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

There are two aspects to notability for this article. First, the term vegaphobia and second, the phenomenon of discrimination against veg(etari)ans. If there are few or no reliable sources for the first, but valid sources for the latter, then the article should be renamed something more generic. Nessie (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Reading through the notability guidance I'd be in favour of the second - although I think it makes more sense to have a section on discrimination in the vegan article (and indeed, balanced with a section on direct action) than an entirely seperate article - at least so far. Joereddington (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Another merge proposal: Criticisms of veganism

The article "Vegaphobia: derogatory discourses of veganism and the reproduction of speciesism in UK national newspapers" along with this article could be used to expand [Criticisms of veganism].

I begin the discussion with a "So: why not merge with Criticisms of veganism?"--Hienafant (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Vegaphobia isn't a criticism of veganism. It's a term used to refer to discriminatory practices against vegans. The article is not very good, but there's enough literature to support an independent article. Any time spent on a merge proposal could be better spent on improving the article. Here and here are a couple more recent sources. And another. There's plenty out there. I can help with access if need be. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)