Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vegetable Rights

From VfD:

I think Vegetable Rights might be a joke or a hoax, but I'm not entirely sure.--Xed 21:57, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wasn't the Neil character on The Young Ones a vegetable rights supporter? I would keep this, but I'm not sure why... --Two Halves, the un log ged

Comment: Chaper XXVI of Samuel Butler's satirical novel, Erewhon, contains a longish passage the rights of vegetables. A "prophet" who argues for animal rights states that "As regards vegetables you may eat all those that will let you eat them with impunity." However, a professor of botany notes (correctly) "both animals and plants, have had a common ancestry, and that hence the second should be deemed as much alive as the first." He goes on at considerable length to demonstrate that plants possess intelligence.
 * The conclusion he drew, or pretended to draw, was that if it was sinful to kill and eat animals, it was not less sinful to do the like by vegetables, or their seeds. None such, he said, should be eaten, save what had died a natural death, such as fruit that was lying on the ground and about to rot, or cabbage-leaves that had turned yellow in late autumn.

The intention of both Butler and Butler's professor is satirical, not serious. It does, however, seem as if there might be enough material of various kinds for a legitimate article on vegetable rights. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:15, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comment: "Vegetable rights" might be just a synonym for fructarianism. If so, it should be redirected, but I'm not sure so I will refrain from voting here. Livajo 00:13, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete: As presented, it's a report on a hoax/fringe/screwball group, but there are limits to how much reportage of how fringe we should do. Most often, this is presented as a parody of animal rights folks.  (Vegetarians "merely take the life of that which has no voice to scream," Matthew Arnold said.)  I worry that our reporting is coming across as endorsement, here.  If Samuel "Erewhon" Butler's passage were included and the various other satirical uses of this position as well, we might offset some of the po-faced seriousness of this report.  Then I could see keeping.  Geogre 00:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason. -- Jack Handy. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. I don't like the article as it stands, but is there an article in which we take up the philosophical question of rights, if any, of non-sentient living things? It certainly has some serious proponents, e.g. Christopher Stone's rather famous 1972 paper "Do Trees Have Standing?" ("standing" in the sense of rights to sue in court, or have someon do so on their behalf). -- Jmabel 05:13, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes. I sort of remember that... it was either published in the Coevolution Quarterly (Whole Earth Review) or intensively discussed therein. Indeed, I always sort of figured Dr. Seuss was referring to it in The Lorax when he repeatedly has the Lorax deliver the line "I am the Lorax, I speak for the trees". When was The Lorax published? Poor article, legitimate topic. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 09:59, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Fructarianism. Darksun 10:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I saw this on newpages a while back and compared to a lot of mainstream ideas, it doesn't sound all that far-fetched to me. -- Bonalaw 10:48, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: no evidence that Vegetable Rights is anything but a joke. The web site in the article has this to say for itself: . Do not redirect to fructarianism -- fructarians eat vegetables, so they can't be for "vegetable rights". Wile E. Heresiarch 14:28, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs NPOVification/cleanup (for one thing, making it clear that the "position" is a joke). I'm reminded of a bonus track from a Tool (band) album: "The carrots have a life! They have a consciousness! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses!"   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 21:21, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

Merged
Merged with Environmental movement and Animal rights and redirected. Demi T/C 20:58, 2005 May 20 (UTC)
 * This was clearly in no meaningful sense merged, so I am reverting. Neither the Lorax nor the rather famous "Do Trees Have Standing" is mentioned in either of those articles. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:34, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not only did I merge the essay into Environmental movement, I created a section for it. In my opinion, there's no particular relevance of the Lorax to anything but its entry, as I don't find any credible information that the book has shaped the environmental or animal rights movement or has any particular significance there. If you disagree, feel free to mention it on those pages. Demi T/C 20:10, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see that now. Still, it seems to me like this ("Vegetable rights") is a legitimate topic even if it has chiefly been one of parody, much as entirely fictional planets are legitimate topics. I'm not going to get in an edit war over this, but I still think that reducing this to a redirect was wrong, and also that it violates the spirit of the conclusion reached in the VfD debate. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:52, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that simply redirecting this topic to the animal rights article is wrong: this is a legitimate topic and there are legitimately people out there who believe that fruits and vegetables have rights. Biases are not to play a part here at Wikipedia, last time I checked. -- Phred00 Aug 16, 2007