User:Martin Hogbin/Paleo

This page contains my reasons for not wanting to used the term 'fad diet' in Wikivoice in the article, particularly in the lead. This saves me from having to explain them no every person who comes to the RfC.

***** Please do not add your comments to this page but use the talk page where there is a copy of these reasons *****

The term is unencyclopedic
The term 'fad diet' is unencyclopedic because it a vague pejorative term. It is not factual, it is not even opinion, it is pure name-calling. Of course, there is nothing wrong with saying, 'X has described the diet as a fad diet'.

WP:lead says, 'The first paragraph should define or identify the topic with a neutral point of view'.

Nobody knows exactly what it is intended to mean
We should not need a link in the first line of the lead to explain to readers what we mean

But if we do follow the link to fad dietit is of little help The first sentence of the lead says, 'A fad diet ... is a diet that makes promises of weight loss or other health advantages such as longer life without backing by solid science, and in many cases are characterized by highly restrictive or unusual food choices'.

There we have several points:


 * 1) A fad diet promises weight loss.
 * 2) A fad diet promises a longer life.
 * 3) A fad diet promises some other health advantage.
 * 4) A fad diet has no backing by solid science for any of its promised advantage.
 * 5) A fad diet is characterised by an unusual food choice.
 * 6) A fad diet is characterised by a highly restrictive food choice.

A reader seeing the term 'fad diet' and following the link to the article has no way of knowing which of these points is intended to apply the PD. Luckily, there is a very simple way to solve this problem, we tell our readers exactly what the facts, as supported by reliable sources, are.

For example we might say, 'The PD claims to give its followers a longer life (1) but there is no scientific evidence for this claim (2)' (where 1 and 2 are refs to reliable sources). Now we are giving encyclopedic facts rather that trying to set up the 'Wikipedia diet assessment service', basically saying X is a good diet Y is a bad diet.

This approach also has the advantage of making discussion here easier and more civil. All we need to discuss is whether reliable sources do show that the PD claims to provide longer life and whether this claim is supported by scientific evidence. Those are simple factual claims which are relatively simple to resolve.

If on the other hand, we choose to say 'fad diet' we are pushing ourselves into endless and pointless arguments about exactly what 'fad diet' means and how accurately and completely that term applies to the PD. Reliable sources cannot easily resolve this problem because that would entail doing our own OR to see what proportion of soirces use the term compared with those that do not.

Arbcom
There is an ongoing effort by a group of editors to use Wikipedia as a mouthpiece for an extreme brand of veganism and animal rights activism.

The Problem
The problem is that the content and style of the Veganism article promote veganism by, giving undue weight to minor medical benefits of veganism and ignoring medical problems (given in the same source) from veganism, using the language of veganism and animal right activism without attribution, including only picturte which present a positive inage of veganism or a negative image of meat production. The lead also presented an extreme form of veganism as veganism in general.

Since 2005 there have been attempts by many editors For many years two editors, and later a

My editing style
It has always been to create an encyclopedia with encyclopedic content written from an impartial point of view and to treat other editors with respect and civility and to resolve disputes by civil discussion rather than edit warring and personal attacks and, where necessary to use the official dispute resolution procedures, such as RfC.

For this article I have generally followed WP:BRD and WP:AVOIDABUSE, and used the dispute resolution procedures described in WP:DISPUTE

I have used the talk pages exclusively as decribed in WP:TALK

Page ownership and Personal attacks
The following editors have made by far the greatest number of edits to the article page and more edits than I have to the talk page. They have fought off all dissenting editors with (mild) personal attacks (see below), threats, accusations and reporting on AN pages.

Viriditas
Martin, have you even bothered to look at the sources?

Martin can (and will) discuss this for three years or more if he is allowed to continue

To Zippy268:  It sounds like you haven't read the article you are edit warring on. Why in the world would someone have to be a vegan to write a paper about it?  Please review WP:IDHT.

Sammy1339
User:Martin Hogbin|Martin Hogbin continues to demonstrate he has an unusually broad idea of "promotional" when it comes to this topic.

Martin, who paradoxically agrees with both of them at the same time

Please don't fall for Martin Hogbin's nonsense

In the context of your behavior on Green topics generally, it's becoming very hard to assume good faith, as several editors have pointed out.

FourViolas
(Martin) has not yet shown any evidence of having read through RS (other than a few WP:Dictionaries as sources) to support his point, which is based instead on his subjective opinion.

Slim Virgin (also posting as SlimVirgin II and SarahSV)
As I said, do the reading and stop wasting other people's time.

Most editors have all agreed with the various points that I have raised
I am not a lone tendentious editor but I am persistent. The following editors have all agreed with the points that I have made but many have been driven away the attitude of the regulars.

105.229.39.88
Apart from the reasons as already thrashed out, the whole lede as it stands is confused, ambiguous, long, and reads like advertising copy for a lobby group.

-Iamozy
I am not a regular contributor to this article, but I can be if no one else wants to add the topic criticism of veganism to the article. ... My problem with this article is that criticism seems to be barely mentioned at all.

SageRad
I read the phrase to connote relations of commodification, and not solely the property status of owned animals in some humans' minds. I find it hard not to read it like that. No matter how you cut it, i am pretty sure that some vegans' issues with the use of animal products in the present day food industry is the ways in which animals suffer because of being treated as objects, which is a part of commodification and objectification, which i do think is implied strongly by "commodity status of animals".

Jonpatterns
It seems there are a number of different concepts being mixed together. One is the legal status of animals. A second is what practices are used with animals - being sold. A third being how animals are treated when they are sold.

Secondly, I am unclear whether all/most Vegans don't object to property status, but specifically being sold as commodities?

Betty Logan
I don't think anyone here is arguing against the view that eating or using animal products treats animals as "commodities". The problem is that the view of animals as "commodities" embraces far more than what this article goes into. Is pet-owning not treating an animal as a commodity? And yet I know a pet-owning vegan. What about horse-riding or service animals? If a vegan were buried alive in an avalanche would they be against the use of sniffer dogs to locate them? It seems to me there are a lot of issues where animals are treated a commodities but veganism doesn't adopt a stance on. I really think the lead would benefit from more common language. 

I think we can certainly come up with something better than the current phrasing. In truth I don't really know what "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" actually means. Would that preclude going out and buying a dog, for example? All the definitions above stipulate that vegans abstain from/refrain from/do not eat food of animal origin and that they refrain from using/often do not use/avoid products of animal origin.

Mr. Magoo and McBarker
There are only three viable sources to begin with and only one of them, Francione, actually defines ethical veganism to be about commodity status, but in an other instance above he wrote that ethical veganism is about not wearing or using animal products. And in another instance he wrote that the commodity status is on the periphery of the debate. The other two merely define themselves as ethical vegans and also state that they oppose commodity status. In addition all three sources seem to be radical vegans even if they are academics. Completely biased and untrustworthy sources.

It seems like that to me. You make and force vast and general statements about vegans you have no sources for at all.

Alexbrn
It is obvious to the world looking at veganism from the outside in, that there is disagreement between those within veganism who take a purist view of what it is to be "vegan" and those who have a less purist take - and our sources of course reflect that.

Well that is what has been discussed at the noticeboard, and the good sources used do say there is no clear or conclusive evidence [that "Vegetarian and vegan diets are generally considered to be cancer-protective"],

Salix alba
If you want the definitive definition of veganism you have to look to the groups which define it. Especially the Vegan Society, not some parts of the academic literature who take this definition and intellectualize it.

Reterterterter
The animals deaths caused by vegans unrelated to eating is not mentioned, this is far more than the amount eaten. how about some balance?

TonyClarke
... 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 1 suggests the majority do have them. 

I think the word 'commodity' is a red herring, so to speak, and confirms the need to rewrite the lead.

SummerPhD
Your "understanding" is flawed and moot. Reliable sources, speaking of B12 in relation to veganism mince no words: There are no natural vegan foods that provide B12. Vegans -- not just those who don't eat shit -- need suppliments or fortified foods. The section dodges and obfuscates it well.

184.166.177.242
...this is the only diet-based wiki page that doesn't have a criticisms section, even though there are a lot of valid critiques, and a substantial chunk of it reads like propaganda. Considering the fact that anyone who wants to make these passages appear more neutral is chewed out for it in the talk page? Bias is rather apparent.[It needed it. Among other things, this is the only diet-based wiki page that doesn't have a criticisms section, even though there are a lot of valid critiques, and a substantial chunk of it reads like propaganda. Considering the fact that anyone who wants to make these passages appear more neutral is chewed out for it in the talk page? Bias is rather apparent. ]

Muleattack
Slim, sorry but I'm beginning to wonder if you should read WP:OWNERSHIP

Amidelalune
It seems to me this article is so non-neutral especially in the health section. 

70.78.5.3
Why is there no criticism section? Surely not everyone agrees being vegan is perfect, seeing as not many people are actually vegans.

Schafhirt
The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents the erroneous percentage of GHGs attributed to livestock by Goodland and Anhang. 

68.199.204.112
It seems to me that this article is biased, especially in its section about health effects. There are *plenty* of counter-arguments, one need only look for them; and yet there is no mention of that fact. 

71.93.70.40
There are many articles, research papers and studies that have enough weight to merit a section of criticism against the vegan diet. I fear that this is something that some vegans would not want to see on this page as the article appears to be written from a very biased prospective. I am proposing that a new section be added as described above. 

Sánchez
Why isn't there a section of criticism towards veganism? This article sounds pretty biased in favor of the subject almost ignoring the criticism or drawbacks of being a vegan. 

Ronk01
Hate to bring this up, but the nutrition is horridly one sided, infants for example are not better off on vegan diets, or even vegetarian ones for that matter. Additionally, vegan diets are chronically low in absorbed iron; that is, the iron that is actually absorbed by the body. Plant source iron is not nearly as well absorbed as animal source iron, owing to factors of biochemical similarity (a human has much more in common with a cow than with a soya plant), and bioavalibility. 

68.21.1.203
This article is heavily biased in favor of a vegan lifestyle. It does not adequately present the nutritional dangers of veganism, including the promotion of eating disorders among young women. The article uses outdated and misrepresented scientific articles to promote it's point of view, especially in the vegan vs. omnivore diet section.

Creation of satellite pages of dubious merit
The regulars on this page have also created at least two other pages that promote veganism or extreme animal rights.

Commodity status of animals This page appeared just as I mad the point that the term would have no clear meaning to the average reader.

Carnism Depite the fact that most people are 'carnists' this article presents 'carnism' as a bizarre minority view.

My edits to the article page
On the article page, since I first posted here in October 2012, I have made a total of only 21 edits, 4 uncontrovertial and 17 related to this dispute. Of these 10 were immediately reverted.

First edit   Removing excessive medical claims from the lead. 

Chicks

Excessive medical claims and overblown claims for popularity. Immediate revert

Although I was not totally correct in all my assertions this was very much a worst case description of farming

Removed duplication of exact same words  Part revert of a bit I removed by mistake

Removed blatant commercial plugs

Uncontroversial factual edit. 

Removed image of poor farming practice unrelated to veganism  Immediate revert

Put 'commodity status' into the correct context. This started it all  Immediately reverted with edit comment, 'This is just stupid'.

Maybe a criticism section? Nope, section, and content immediately removed

Undid revertion of good faith edit by ClueBot

Spelling consistency (Engvar)

Undid reversion of another (Unknown to me) editor's edits which were bizarrely called edit warring. Immediat revert

Restore good faith edit incorrectly identified as vandalism by bot  Immediately reverted

Tried some different wording to resolve dispute above. Not accepted

Maybe this then No but a good compromise proposed and agreed  Cooperative editing at last!

Reverted word unxepectedly added during RfC on that wording asking for explanation. It must stay   No reason given why it was better.

Added attempt to put 'speciesism' in context. Self-reverted as part of next edit, poor wording

Added some sourced criticism of veganism wording from the source abstract. This was change by Sammy1339 to own words with different meaning

Removed unnecessary promotional description of author. Immediately reverted

Added sourced (and evidently true) statement critical of veganism. Reverted

Reliable sources
It has often been claimed that I have no sources to promote my opinion. This was the edit (my change in bold) that caused the longest argument, ending in an RfC.

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in one's diet, as well as following an associated philosophy that rejects what they consider to be the commodity status of animals.

My point is that it is vegan sources and animal rights sources that use the terminology 'commodity status of animals'. What are my sources for this? The sources already cited in the article! All those that use the term 'commodity status of animals' are extreme vegan or animal rights sources. To use the terminology in Wikivoice, without attribution or limitation, we require a souces saying or demonstrating that 'commodity status of animals' is in common usage. None has ever been provided.

When another editor proposed a criticism section and provided a number of reliable sources, one of the regulars immediately shot every source down in flames as being unreliable. See

RfC
To try to resolve the dispute over 'commidity status' I started an RfC on the subject with the question "Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'?".

As of 21 February, when the RfC expired, 15 said 'NO' and 12 said 'Yes'.

ANI
The dispute culminated in a ANI

Although 6 editors (Betty Logan, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, Glrx, GoodDay, Biscuittin, Collect) were opposed to sanctions against me and 7 Editors (Viriditas TREKphiler, Gandydancer, Sammy1339, SarahSV, IjonTichy, Guy) for them (with FourViolas being ambivalent) sanctions were applied to me by Drmies, leaving the current page owners free to use the page to define veganism according to their own WP:OR and promote veganism. See WP:DSAN

This is an extreme case of an admin (and Arbcom member) using their position of power to improperly influence a content dispute. If any sanctions at all are needed in this content dispute it should be against those who have claimed ownership to this page in order to promote their cause.