Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  keep. The overall consensus of concerns here relate to the content of this particular article, not necessarily to its existence. The concerns about individual citations and language are almost overkill when analyzing a draft but are still appropriate even if it seems to be a minority opinion here. The suggestion for merger is also a minority opinion. The consensus here seems to be that this either is (or can be) a distinctly different article than Carnism. Along with that, the consensus supports that this is at least worth moving to mainspace, which can result in merger discussions there, most lengthy and detailed talk page discussions there about content (including the typical DRR mechanisms) or a more lengthy and proper AFD discussion. As such, I'm saying I guess independently of this close, I am moving this page to mainspace. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Psychology of eating meat


I am making a neutral nomination to ensure that this draft is discussed, because the submit > Review > Edit > resubmit process has now become stalled. I had tried to accept the draft and requested that the redirect at Psychology of eating meat be moved out of the way in order to achieve this. My view is that it met the acceptance criteria, i.e. it had a better than 60% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process.

After the redirect was deleted it was recreated, together with a rationale, by an experienced editor. The rationale has stated it to be a WP:POVFORK of Carnism. That may or may not be correct. I have not checked. However, that is not, in my view, the business of WP:AFC. I view valid outcomes of that process as eventual acceptance (followed by whatever happens to it as a mainspace article) or as deletion as inappropriate, probably using this MfD process.

It seems to me that the only way of forcing an outcome of the various opinions is to create this formal discussion. The Draft is flagged at present as "Under review" to seek to ensure that it is neither accepted nor declined during the discussion, but editors are reminded that they are free to improve the draft throughout the process.

If I offer a !vote at all it will be in the body of this nomination. Fiddle  Faddle  18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and move to mainspace. With 92 references, it should not stay bottled up at AfC. Jonathunder (talk) 18:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete if we're discussing a mainspace article. I created Psychology of eating meat in July 2015 as a redirect to Carnism, just after an anon created the latter. This draft was created in August as a fork of Carnism, and material was simply copied into it from that article, sometimes word for word, sometimes with tweaking. If we're discussing deleting the draft, I don't mind what happens to the draft if people want to work on it. The current version reads to me like a personal essay. It has been rejected once on that basis by, and once by  as a duplicate of Carnism.  There has been no improvement to it since then. SarahSV (talk) 18:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not a duplicate: it's longer, better written, and has many more references. It's Carnism that reads like an essay. Jonathunder (talk) 18:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record: the only material I copied over was the "ascription of limited mental capacity" section, which I subsequently cut down to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. FourViolas (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't read Carnism for a while, but this draft would need work. Looking only at the lead, the first sentence doesn't really mean anything. What is "human morality," other than morality? Can meat/meat eating be "ambivalent"? What does "testing theories of cognitive dissonance and moral disengagement" mean?


 * People were essentially driven away from Carnism because of endless, pointless arguments, including about this fork, which meant that article didn't get improved, and now this one won't either. The writer should have gained consensus to do this, rather than trying to pre-empt discussion about merging or renaming by creating a fork. I think that's all I'm going to say about it. If others want to work on this, that's obviously fine with me. I'm certainly not arguing that it isn't a legitimate area of study. SarahSV (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * With respect to both authors, whom I value broadly as editors on this project, both articles have massive issues with WP:POV, WP:Original research/WP:Synthesis, WP:Advocacy, and WP:SOAPBOXING.  But there is a significant difference in that "carnism" is unambiguously a WP:neologism (which is exactly why it is being considered for a very necessary merger) upon to which a truly ludicrous amount of original research has been attached, with the bulk of these sources not discussing the concept of carnism at all.  The topic of "the psychology of eating meat" is, by comparison, a broadly relevant topic that is directly and explicitly in huge heaping mountains of reliable sources.  I agree that the way those sources have been approached in this article (with regard to selection and presentation) is off-kilter and POV, but at this point my main concern is which article can potentially be improved to represent this aspect of human behaviour in a verifiable, neutral and encyclopedic fashion.


 * So to the extent that Carnism and Psychology of eating meat are POV forks of one-another, then if we have to choose between one of the articles whose namespace and approach better represent that topic, then there's no question that it must be Psychology of eating meat, since the vast, vast, vast majority of the of sources on the core topic of human behaviour with regard to meat in those terms, ranking probably into the tens of thousands, whereas "carnism" is mentioned in only a handful of niche references regarding Joy and her book, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. The WP:Weight here clearly indicates which of these approaches is the best base upon which to build the framework of a discussion of human behaviour regarding meat.  Carnism should be merged as proposed--and inevitably will, I think, hopefully sooner rather than later, despite staunch defense by some well-intentioned editors.  But I don't think we should rush to fill the gap with this article either, as it clearly needs a lot of work.  I think the draft should be preserved for a time yet, without any nail biting as to how slowly improvement is preceding. Let's get this right and encyclopedic this time.  S n o w  let's rap 23:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This is to remind contributors to this discussion that a POV Fork is deprecated and usually deleted, and that the encyclopaedia is built often with a legitimate content fork. Sometimes people mistake the one for the other. I am offering no commentary about which of these this is or if it is either of them. I am simply drawing this to current and future contributors' attention. Fiddle   Faddle  19:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it matters which article is better than the other, they both cover essentially the same ground and therefore should be combined into a single article. It may be possible to divide this topic into complementary subtopics, but the articles as written have quite a bit of overlap. One article treats it as ideology, and the other as psychology, but there isn't a clear differentiation. I see the discussion that led to this fork, but I don't see forking a solution. I'm also not terribly comfortable with the "Psychology of..." which has a pseudo-scientific air. This is as much sociology, religion, happenstance (e.g. what's available as food) as it is psychology. I also think that both articles are trying to be overly general in their area, trying to explain everything about meat-eating with a single ideology. It would make sense to me to have an article about how various religions treat meat-eating, including "new age" ideas. It also would make sense to have an article about the medical claims over time, which date back to ancient times. Both of these articles seem to be heavily POV'd, with some very useful information but not presented in a neutral or scientific way. LaMona (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I've had time to think about this, both articles show a strong POV that violates WP policy on writing. Also, the topics they address are fully covered in Meat, Ethics of eating meat, and other articles linked from there. Delete both of these as pushing a POV that is not appropriate on WP, and for being articles on topics that are already fully covered. (Note, if some folks disagree that they are fully covered in current articles, adding to current articles, with appropriate discussion on their talk pages, is a valid option.) LaMona (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong merge with subsequent deletion of draft article. The cover the same thing. Any other material should be in sandbox or talkpage but not article draft. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * attribution will then be broken, so the practice is redirect rather than deletion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The psychology of meat consumption is the parent topic. Joy's theory of carnism is only one of many psychological theories of eating meat, in particular, a theory from the POV of a non-meat eater. It does not define nor limit the breadth of the topic.  Clearly, both topics need work, but one particular view of meat eating does not define all views. Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we need a merge/move request or/and RfC as to what the title and scope should be. My view is strongly they should be one article, and my leaning is the draft article is the broader and better article with the same concerns about carnism, but I concede I don't know much about the topic area. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both, move draft to mainspace, move Carnism to draft (as author of draft). This is a content fork. The psychology of eating meat is a broad, multifaceted topic; "carnism" is a word used by Joy and others to describe the opposite of vegetarianism, and so describes a lifestyle and culture, as well as one interpretation of the psychology. It is OR to put the draft material under "carnism"; my sources never use that neologism to describe their subject ("carnist" appears once). It is also not appropriate to write about the cultural aspects of "carnism" under "psychology of". The "ascription" material is OR in the carnism article, because its sources do not use the term. "Carnism" passes GNG as a social-science research paradigm. Many thanks to all for your patience. FourViolas (talk) 03:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , here is an example of the problem. I picked a source at random from the "Personality characteristics" section. This article, the lead author of which is a PhD student, is used to support: "those who value power more highly tend to eat more meat, while those who prefer self-transcendence values tend to eat less."


 * I'm not able to extract any meaning from that. What are "self-transcendence values"? Does "those who value power" include people on low incomes with restricted options for protein? The citation gives no page number, so I don't know where to look in the article; it could be the table on p. 101, but I don't think that's the kind of thing we should rely on. There are problems like this throughout.


 * As Sammy wrote in August, the way this was approached created a "chilling effect on the development of both articles." Rather than try to get people to help, a really divisive atmosphere emerged, and so people wandered away from both pages. Remember that we were all there to save Carnism from AfD; none of us created it, but for some reason the spirit of cooperation disappeared. SarahSV (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SV, the values of self-transcendence are well known in the literature, and were first popularized in Maslow's hierarchy of needs. In 2015 alone, it has gained even greater currency, and is used extensively in many different discussions. I've seen it used consistently in academic journals and mainstream newspapers and magazines.  It's generally considered a common currency term that is synonymous with altruism and caring for others, including non-human animals.  This is not a problem at all, it's a normal term found in contemporary discussions of how to address social problems. Viriditas (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I have no idea what that sentence means in this context: if you do, please explain. Perhaps FourViolas could give a page number so that we can read what the source says. But I don't want to spend too much time on this one example, because I meant it only as an illustration. SarahSV (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * SV, with the greatest of respect and AGF, the sentence you object to is self-explanatory and easy to understand. Perhaps you were unaware of the update to Maslow's model?. In any case, I read a fair amount, and I see the term used on a daily basis, so I can only surmise it has a wider currency than you describe. Viriditas (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, I wikilinked the term, so that readers who aren't familiar with the term can go read about it. I was citing p. 99 ("An overall assessment of the empirical literature" et seq.); I could add page refs if needed. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 04:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * unfortunately, you've linked to an article with the same name but of an entirely different concept and discipline. The values of self-transcendence under discussion are linked to humanistic and transpersonal psychology.  I recommend removing the link entirely and replacing it with a temporarily link to the self-transcendent subsection in the hierarchy of needs article until the other article can be properly disambiguated as a personality trait in the Temperament and Character Inventory. Viriditas (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not about the meaning of that term, but about the sentence. This was from an online survey of 202 people, and I think quite a bit of the article is built on this kind of source. SarahSV (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The term seems to be used in different ways, not just to point to the values of altruism, compassion, spirituality, and transcending self-interest, but per the above it appears to be used in a personality inventory for mental illness. As for your criticism of the entire article from a single objection to one sentence and one source, that sounds a lot like a hasty generalization. Viriditas (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Viriditas, thank you for the correction. SV, the quote supporting the sentence is
 * which is a reliably published researcher's secondary review of a lot of literature, not a 200-person survey. If this is the kind of problem you're worried about, I think the article's in good shape. FourViolas (talk) 05:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that traditional psychology and psychiatry have been largely indifferent and somewhat hostile to notions of self-transcendence, which is why we see it being used in a reactionary manner by Cloninger to indicate abnormal psychology rather than by Maslow who describes it as the pinnacle of human attainment. There's a lot of irony and establishment bias lurking beneath the surface.  After all, the values of self-transcendence conflict with Western values of consumerism, selfishness, individuality, greed, and desire—all of which support the act of eating animals. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that traditional psychology and psychiatry have been largely indifferent and somewhat hostile to notions of self-transcendence, which is why we see it being used in a reactionary manner by Cloninger to indicate abnormal psychology rather than by Maslow who describes it as the pinnacle of human attainment. There's a lot of irony and establishment bias lurking beneath the surface.  After all, the values of self-transcendence conflict with Western values of consumerism, selfishness, individuality, greed, and desire—all of which support the act of eating animals. Viriditas (talk) 06:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , the paragraph you quoted above really doesn't mean anything. If you want to use the cited sources, consider using them directly, but bear in mind that several are not up-to-date; this area has changed a lot in the last 15 years. SarahSV (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The paragraph he quoted means a great deal, and uses the theory of basic human values to derive its meaning.  The paragraph is also current and not outdated. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Request Please will contributors make a clear distinction between the content of the draft, something that is a matter for both improvement of the draft and the draft's talk page, and the rationales for opining over the outcome. While some discussion of the content is essential for the purposes of this page's discussion, those in favour of and against the draft are straying somewhat from those outcomes and may turn this discussion into a wholesale debate that should be held elsewhere. MfD is a far simpler place than a talk page. Consensus about content should be built on article or draft talk pages. Consensus about the ultimate destination of the draft should be built here. Fiddle   Faddle  09:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. One of the most disturbingly POV and opinion-skewed drafts/articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. No way is it encyclopedic. It is a cherry-picked nightmare of vegan-chauvinism opinions, proffered as fact. And I say this as someone who has, during my life, been either a vegetarian or a vegan for many many decades. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * To further support and illustrate the problem as you see it, can you identify specific examples for review? Viriditas (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * In particular, can you identify any reliably published psychology book or paper which disputes information in the article? FourViolas (talk) 14:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Among other things: Random (cherry-pick-cited, if at all) claims that: (1) Humans "evolved" into meat-eating. (2) Meat-eating is "morally ambivalent". (3) People don't realize that leather or cheese come from cows. (4) Meat-eating intrinsically involves animal suffering. (5) Meat-eating has to be "justified". (6) Meat-eating is nutritionally optional for all people. The article is also very first-world temperate-climate centered; it ignores the fact that, as Anthony Bourdain often notes, vegetarianism and veganism are first-world luxuries: they rely on a highly organized agrarian society. The article also ignores the fact that the vast, vast overwhelming majority of the world's population eats meat and has for centuries. The article completely ignores and fails to mention fish. This is a WP:FRINGE article on a fringe topic, glorified as fact, and not only that, as morally superior. I would be fine if the draft were merged into veganism, but it's far too POV, opinion-y, moralistic, fringe-y, synth/OR, and outright incorrect as is. Softlavender (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC); edited 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I just don't agree at all, and I'm frankly confused by your reading and interpretation of the article. I mean, did you really just argue that meat eating doesn't intrinsically involve animal suffering?  That's just too weird for words.  And did you really just cite Bourdain as an expert here.  You're either deliberately putting me on or we inhabit two different realities. Viriditas (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All animals, indeed all beings, die. Dying by being killed for food for humans is not intrinsically suffering any more than dying by being killed for food by other predators (omnivores and carnivores), or dying of injury or disease, or dying by being killed for food for pets, or being euthanized at a shelter (and then used for food for pets). I did not cite Bourdain as an expert. Softlavender (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (1): Didn't realize that was controversial—I'm not an evolutionary biologist. Changed "In the course of human evolution, the transition to meat-eating required early hominids to cooperate in hunting" to "...the pressures associated with obtaining meat...".
 * (2) "Ambivalence" at least is uncontroversial, e.g.. Re morality, Loughnan et al. 2014 p.105 say
 * If you can think of a better way to say "considered immoral by different people to different degrees" than "morally ambiguous", go ahead.
 * (3) I never claimed that.
 * (4) "Justifications" for eating meat are very widely studied, using that term:
 * (5) I never claimed that.
 * Cultural variation in meat consumption, and lamentation about how poorly-studied it is, is included in Draft:Psychology of eating meat. Re ignoring majority: the introduction begins with "Meat is an important and highly preferred human food—indeed, in some languages the word can be synonymous with "food"—and is the focus of many cultural traditions. Humans have eaten meat since before the emergence of civilization; the challenges involved in obtaining it, such as the organization of hunting groups, helped to shape human society." The review papers I used, as well as Google Scholar, never pointed me to articles about fish-eating psychology. Thanks for your detailed feedback. FourViolas (talk) 02:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (By the way, my numbering was screwed up above, and I've fixed it.) I don't really have an interest in hashing out the details with the authors of this draft because even with the replies above it is clear (to me at least) that you can't see past your own POV and agenda-pushing. My !vote stands: delete, or if anything add some portions of it to Veganism, where it will still be problematic and POV, but at least it will be in the context of the justifications for veganism. Softlavender (talk) 04:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never contributed to this draft, so you can't consider me an author. You accuse others of POV and agenda pushing, but I really don't see that here, and believe me, I would be the first to raise that claim as the majority of my edits in this topic area have been critical, questioning, and skeptical. Your comments above seem very strange to me. Your subsequent comment equating "dying" with "killing" is simply over the edge and bizarre. And your appeal to the majority of meat eaters seems to suggest that if the majority does something, it is both correct and beyond question.  I'm frankly disappointed in your response here. The transatlantic slave trade was an economic powerhouse for 400 years, supported by major governments and corporations of their day. According to your line of reasoning, slavery was justified because the majority supported it, and arguments otherwise should be viewed as "fringe". Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Carnism. But Carnism may not be the best title, as it seems to be a POV neoligsm itself.  The Psychology of eating meat title is more neutral sounding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, accept and merge Carnism to this new topic Psychology of eating meat. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that there is currently a discussion on merging Carnism into Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, the article for the book from which the term derives, precisely because that term is a neologism and all of it in sources is connected to that book. Perhaps the ideal solution here is a bi-directional merge of Carnism; all sources which actually explicitly relate to that term could be merged into the article on Joy's book, whereas some of the rest of the material that has been synthed into that article inappropriately (which is the majority of the content., which is not supported by sources which link to the neologism).  That would actually be a pretty elegant solution; both authors would know that a great deal of their content is being preserved, if in a tweaked format, and could rest assured that the core concepts are getting adequate coverage, regardless of the namespace. Meanwhile, with those two concepts cleanly delineated, and the synth material from both articles compiled into one draft here, we'll actually be able to make some headway in cleaning up the content, hopefully shaping it into article that discusses the root issue of human attitudes towards meat in a non-POV, non-OR, ad encyclopedic manner.   S n o w  let's rap 01:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Snow, has anyone pointed out a single, verifiable problem with this article that compels taking action? I've read through this discussion and can't find one. Viriditas (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, Viriditas, the verifiable problem is that it repeats content that is both in Meat Ethics of eating meat and Eating meat as well as covering almost entirely the same ground as Carnism, but with a different POV. What we're trying to do, IMO, is to find a way to merge information about meat eating (scientific, historical, religious, sociological, psychological) into one or more coherent articles. Right now, both this article and especially Carnism (which spawned this article) are POV-rich but essentially redundant with each other and partially redundant with the other articles I mentioned. LaMona (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I partially agree with Graeme Bartlett that this material is derivative of both Carnism and its source book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, per the sources that come up when searching the phrase: . (By the way the first source that comes up for the phrase is this Psychology Today article from December 2014 called "84% of Vegetarians and Vegans Return to Meat. Why?".) I don't however think the solution is a merge to/with Carnism; which has it's own problems of (1) being a neologism solely reflective of that book and (2) being a derivative POV OR SYNTH. The Carnism article doesn't need more unrelated POV OR, it needs to be trimmed and merged back into the article on the book, which is subtitled "An Introduction to Carnism". -- Softlavender (talk) 05:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's examine your argument: if his article is derivative of Carnism and Joy's book, we would expect to find the majority of sources in the article connected to Carnism and Joy's book. Why is it then, that we don't? Viriditas (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, the draft's sources do not use the term "carnism"; most predate Joy's book. Try Google Scholar instead. FourViolas (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Those who believe the topic is not notable enough for a stand-alone article need to explain how 100 reliably published, peer-reviewed sources (here's a shortlist) do not satisfy the GNG.
 * Those claiming that the draft has WP:NPOV problems (which are not grounds for deletion) need to substantiate their claims by citing peer-reviewed psychology papers which disagree with the draft.
 * Although these topics make many uncomfortable, WP:Wikipedia is not censored. FourViolas (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep I participated in the AfD for Carnism, and this is nothing like that article. The subject is clearly notable. As to the "like essay" idea: the topic is so large that it's impossible to expect an initial article to do more than bare-bones it, and bridging material is needed to hold the pieces together. EEng (talk) 04:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have a vested interest in this draft being deleted, because, as alluded to by SlimVirgin above, it was created with the antagonistic purpose of attacking another article I worked on, during extensive edit wars over the latter. However, the topic itself is being held to a standard that would never be applied to, say, traffic psychology. It's not reasonable to deny that this is a legitimate area of study.
 * There are serious problems with the draft, as written. Currently it references a single review paper (Loughnan 2014) eight times, and places undue weight on the "meat paradox" subject, because it was written for the purpose of cannibalizing the other article. Basically, those who just didn't like that article were disgruntled when it couldn't be deleted, and fought hard to create problems in it. This page was created explicitly because of the lack of a suitable merge target - and with the explicit argument that carnism is UNDUE in the context of an article like this (which, one would think, is a reason not to merge.)
 * The draft also isn't solely about psychology, and it's actually a bit questionable to write it that way, because the sources in this area intersect the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, and even marketing. One of the main sources is this classic paper (actually a Ph.D. dissertation in sociology), which is more about anthropology/sociology than psychology. It would be unreasonable to try to separate the subjects - if you look into the sources, you find many of them intersect multiple disciplines.
 * Still, there is valuable material here, and FourViolas' considerable work should definitely not be deleted. My suggestion would be to broaden the topic to eating meat, which is currently a redirect, and create a SUMMARYSTYLE section in meat, since the latter article sorely lacks discussion of the social/cultural aspects of its topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I shall clarify that I think carnism should have a SUMMARYSTYLE section in such an article, rather than being merged into it and then pared down to almost nothing. If this issue comes up again we should go through mediation rather than arguing endlessly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I support keeping Carnism distinct and putting a summary of this draft in Meat, but oppose expanding the scope of the draft. There's a ton of material already, and it's hard enough to weigh sources within this massive subtopic. The vast majority of sources are psychology research papers published by psychologists in behavioral (not social) science journals like Appetite (journal). (Fiddes is not a "main source"; he's currently cited redundantly twice.) I wrote about the meat paradox because, the closest I had to an expert advisor, suggested I emphasize "the general connection between conceptualizations of animals/the feelings of empathy and rights we accord them and...our willingness to eat them under any circumstances broadly".FourViolas (talk) 18:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Not that there's any reason to doubt, but having been pinged I can confirm that I gave 4V advice to this effect, though I failed to follow it up with further involvement helping to flesh out appropriate content. However, I happen to support the notion of rolling carnism and this article into one parent article, removing some of the content altogether to either Meat or Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, and pairing down any synthesis in the rest.  I think Sarah's proposal below (if I am reading it correctly) for a Anthropology of meat eating article has considerable merit.  I think that may be just the non-neologistic, non-synth title we need to begin placing the disputed or otherwise problematic content of both articles into a more encyclopedic format.   S n o w  let's rap 09:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Flesh out" appropriate content -- get it? EEng (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I agree about creating a Meat eating or Anthropology of meat eating parent article instead. We have Anthropology of art, Anthropology of religion, Anthropology of science, etc. I've been trying to come up with a structure at User:SlimVirgin/draft, though I've only spent a few minutes on it. SarahSV (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.