Talk:List of vegans/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 9

"(Dietary) Vegans", or "Ovo-Lacto Vegetarians"?

Vegetarians eat no animals, but in principle do eat eggs and milk. So logically spoken the term "ovo-lacto vegetarian" cannot mean "Vegetarian-who-does-eat-eggs-and- milk", because then the addition of "Ovo-lacto" would be completely useless and superfluous.

So the term "ovo-lacto vegetarian" must mean: "Vegetarian who (apart from no animals) also doesn't eat eggs and milk".

On the other hand the term "Pesco-vegetarian" cannot mean "Vegetarian who also doesn't eat fish", as in principle no vegetarians eat fish, because fishes are also animals (which vegetarians don't eat). So in this case the addition to the word vegetarian is only usefull in case a pesco-vegetarian is concidered to be a vegetarian, who does eat fish.

Anyway, in this context relevant is that those who eat no animals, nor animal eggs and milk, are (should be) called "Ovo-Lacto-Vegetarians". Which in its turn means, that they shouldn't be called "(Dietary) Vegans".

So from this point of view there's a lot of names on this list to be moved to the List of Vegetarians, or a special new list of Ovo-Lacto Vegetarians.

82.169.98.59 (talk) 02:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean here, nor do I understand what relevance this has to the names included in this list. A vegetarian who does not eat eggs but consumes milk products is a "lacto vegetarian", and a vegetarian who does not consume milk products would be an "ovo vegetarian". I have never heard the term "ovo-lacto vegetarian" (which seems to be an oxymoron, since it implies a diet that includes milk and eggs but excludes milk and eggs) or seen it applied to vegetarians. However, the point is moot since everyone on this list is here because the source explicitly calls them "vegan". If there are any names that have been added where the accompanying source does not actually use the word "vegan" then by all means remove them. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"Don't understand"?

Well let's try to make it clear in a gradual way.

Vegetarians don't eat animals (because that implies that these beings have to be killed and that's what vegetarians don't want). Right?

But as 'production' of milk and eggs in itself doesn't include the killing of the relevant animals, vegetarians in principle do eat milk and eggs. Right?

If yes, than it is completely useless to call vegetarians who eat eggs ovo-vegetarians, because that's what they all are. The same goes m.m. for lacto-vegetarians and ovo-lacto-vegetarians. Right?

And now finally becomes clear what many who use these additions to the term vegetarian must mean: the term ovo-vegetarian is meant to say that the relevant vegetarian (like most other vegetarians) does eat eggs but does not eat (drink) milk. Now isn't this the most logical way to say this? Or would it be even more logical to simply call vegetarians who don't eat eggs "ovo-vegetarians", vegetarians who don't eat milk "lacto-vegetarians" and vegetarians who dont eat eggs nor milk "ovo-lacto-vegetarians"? Guess yes, because than the relevant terms clearly point out where something is deviating from vegetarianism sec.

By the way, in the meantime became clear that there IS a difference between vegetarians who don't eat eggs and milk on one hand, and dietary vegans on the other. This difference is called Honey; dietary vegans refuse it, ovo-lacto vegetarians (in the most logical sense of the term) eat it; (otherwise they would/should be called "ovo-lacto-melo-vegetarians").

82.169.98.59 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with this article, or are you just unhappy with oft-used terminology? A lacto-vegetarian does drink milk, an ovo-vegetarian does eat eggs, and a laco-ovo-vegetarian eats both egg and milk products. If you don't like the terms, don't use them, but here isn't the place to propose redefinitions. (Honey isn't the only non-meat, non-egg and non-milk product which vegans will avoid but vegetarians may not mind, by the way- lanolin-derived additives and shellac are typically avoided by vegans, but most vegetarians probably wouldn't mind them.) J Milburn (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I still have difficulty understanding the purpose of this list and that of List of vegetarians. Given that we do have the lists, they should conform to normal WP standards for article space. This includes the core policy of neutral point of view.

How should we maintain a neutral point of view in this list? No list or article in Wikipedia should promote or attack any point of view. At the moment the list seems to consist almost exclusively of the good and great. The one notable exception Adolph Hitler was strongly fought over with many editors trying to assert that he had never been a vegetarian. This leads me to believe that many editors are using these pages to promote vegetarianism, contrary to core policy.

We have by consensus arrived a some guidelines for inclusion which I list below

We have some consensus guidelines for inclusion.

Current guidelines

Only people with a reliable source saying that they are vegetarians

Entries should not be based on unreliable sources or sources which make statements like 'supports the vegetarian cause' or 'wishes he was a vegetarian'.

Only people with an entry in English Wikipedia

Clearly there are millions of vegetarians in the world and we cannot possible include them by name here. We therefore need a notability criterion for deciding who should be included. Having only those in English Wikipedia ensures a degree of notability that is assessed mainly by neutral (with respect to vegetarianism) editors and is very easy to verify (every name need a direct blue link). It meets the guideline that WP should take a world view because that guideline applies to the whole of English Wikipedia so inclusion of an article on the subject should already take account of that guideline. No policy says that we should apply that guideline more strongly here than in WP in general.

Proposed

No groups of people or classes of person

The list should contain only named individuals, not job titles or positions, religions, bands, organisations, duets etc.

Further suggestions for neutrality

I am not sure why we have an 'occupation' column. At the moment this seems to me used to demonstrate how successful in life the entries have been. If we keep the column we need a consistent form of wording that treats the good and the bad alike. Some examples of non-neutrality here are:

Neal Barnard - Physician, president of Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine - not 'physician'
Tom Regan - Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University - not 'academic' Ruben Studdard - 2nd season winner of American Idol - not 'singer' Whereas:

Volkert van der Graaf - unemployed (was assassin) - not 'convicted murderer'

but:

Adam Lanza - No occupation, mass murderer

I don't think bands/groups should be included. If the person isn't notable enough to have their own article then they shouldn't be on the list. As for the occupation column I think it is generally useful to know something about their background bearing in mind that not all our readers will be familiar with everyone on the lists. It shouldn't be used to place vegans on a pedestal though i.e. it should be brief and neutral. I also agree there is a neutrality problem when it comes to notorious vegetarians. Someone like Venus Williams is added despite the fact she doesn't actually identify herself as a vegan (she regards herself as a "cheagan" that just mostly follows the diet) and Billy Bob Thornton (despite the fact he leaves his veganism at home when he visits Texas) but there are repeated attempts to remove "bad" vegetarians such as Hitler despite the fact he himself resolutely identified as a vegetarian (enough for everyone else on the list) and that there are multiple witnesses that are on record talking about his diet. There is a lot of agenda pushing on these lists so to summarise my views on the points you have raised:

1. Only individuals with articles should be included
2. The occupation label should be brief and neutral and not used for promotion.
3. The threshold for inclusion should be the same for everyone.

Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way; Hitler cannot be removed from the list of vegetarians (because he directly and/or indirectly killed persons, which are animals (mammals) as well), as long as he didn't eat (some of) them. For vegetarianism doesn't imply not-killing-animals; just not eating them. But veganism implies not killing animals and so not-killing-persons. That's why Volkert van der Graaf might be removed from this list of Vegans. It's true that according sources he once declared himself to be vegan in an interview, but that interview took place a few years before the relevant murder. In how far can souces decide what's in an article, when facts (that also are mentioned in reliabel sources) later on prooved that the content of the first mentioned sources is not in line with the facts (any more)?

What for instance if this article would be a list of persons who didn't kill one or more other persons and one name on it once declared himself to be such a non-murderer, but later on evidently did kill another person? Guess that in this case generally known facts should prevail above a superseded own declaration in a reliabel source. (Unless maybe the relevant murder evidently was motivated by an irresistable wish to prevent what the murdered according to his political program, intended to do wrongly (in the vision of vegans) to animals; but in case of Volkert van der Graaf that has not been mentioned as the motivation in the relevant trial). 82.169.98.59 (talk) 04:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This article is based on published sources, and not on your personal definition of what constitutes veganism. Accordingly, since you cite no source which states that he is no longer vegan, I am restoring him to the list. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Twitter as a reliable source

I have just removed an entry in which the source was Twitter. Although the tweet appeared to come from the subject we have no way of verifying that this is actually so. It is also very much a primary source. What is the general opinion on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the general view on this is that a clearly marked confirmed/authenticated/verified Twitter account would be acceptable for claims about the account owner under WP:SPS, under the same conditions we can use an official website. Betty Logan (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is very much a primary source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Betty. J Milburn (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet,

The principal criterion for appearing on this list is given in the statement above, ' All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet'. It is not a list of people who claim to be on a vegan diet, or would like to be on one. In my opinion if we start to list near-vegans or wannabe vegans the list becomes useless. In accordance with normal WP policy we also require an independent reliable source confirming that the subject is, in fact, a vegan.

Further to this there is also the consensus that an entry has an English WP page. This provides an independent and easily verified confirmation of notability. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide who is and who isn't really a vegan- Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth". If someone self-identifies as a vegan and a reliable source is happy to call them a vegan, short of another reliable source specifically saying that they aren't a vegan, they should be included. Part of the reason we can't "police" the list and remove people who we decide aren't vegans is that it could very quickly get silly. Are people who drive cars with tires possibly containing animal products non-vegan? How about people who work for organisations which sell or promote animal products? J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is is not our job to make private enquiries into subjects' veganism, but if we have a good quality source saying that a subject eats meat or fish, or something else that is clearly totally against the spirit of veganism, we should count it as a source saying that they are not vegan. Less clear cut issues, like maybe they subject once wore a leather belt, should be treated with more caution. My concern is only the integrity of WP. If a person is listed here, we should be confident that they currently are, according to reliable sources and the definitions in this encyclopedia, vegan.

Like Betty, I do have concerns over the use of just pro-vegan sources, such as PETA, in that they may have a tendency promote their cause by trying to show how many of the rich and famous are vegan. We seem to have accepted that PETA a reliable source but, if we find a contradictory source, I think we must give greater weight to non-partisan sources.

I also have concerns over the use of social media as sources. They must count as self-published primary sources at best. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about questionable sources- but that's a side point. Take Billybob Thornton, who I have added to the page, and both you and Betty have removed. Thornton calls himself vegan, and I can cite several decent sources referring to him as a vegan. You are literally saying that we should ignore Thornton's own self-identity and how he's referred to in reliable sources just because he doesn't meet (or meat, hurr hurr hurr) your preferred definition of veganism. We are all (I'm assuming now that you're a vegan) "imperfect" vegans in some sense- short of living in a tree and drinking rainwater, we're always going to be using something animal derived. Some of us are better at cutting things out than others; I certainly wouldn't eat meat at a barbecue, but then I'm sure there will be areas of my life in which I'm "less vegan" than Thornton. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think self-identification is a large part of the criteria, but neither Billy Bob Thornton or stic.man actually identify as vegan if you read their comments carefully. Thornton is in fact clarifying that he is not vegan when he stays in Texas: "I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here". At best he's a "part-time" vegan, if there is such a thing. Stic.man on the other hand doesn't even claim to be vegan; what he actually does say is this: "I’m basically a vegan but I have added certain fish to my diet on occasion." i.e. if he identified solely as vegan he wouldn't be qualifying his diet as "basically vegan", he would be calling it "vegan". This has nothing to do with "policing", but rather accurately reflecting what these people actually say about their diets. Vegan pressure groups such as Peta will add famous people to their lists simply because they are preoccupied with pushing an agenda rather than accurately reflecting facts, so in that respect Peta isn't good enough for me if the person in question is saying something else; Wikipedia is obliged to be neutral in these matters. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Betty here. It is not a question of verifiability vs truth to say that Billybob Thornton is not a vegan. He states that he regularly eats meat, that means that, by any definition of the term, he is not a vegan. There is no attempt to police the term or apply it particularly strictly here. As I said above, if he once wore a leather belt or put some milk in his tea that might be a different thing, but publicly stating that you regularly eat meat means quite simply that you are not a vegan.

Similarly with Stic.man, 'basically vegan' is not vegan. There is no attempt to judge him on what he does, that is certainly not our purpose, we are just trying to determine whether, according to what we can find in reliable sources, he fits into a certain fairly well-defined category, and he does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Stic.man- yeah, I'm convinced. "[B]asically vegan" is not vegan. I'd never heard of him before this weekend, and was only going off the PETA source. However, I think you're overanalysing Thornton's comments. "I'm vegan these days" is pretty unambiguous. If you have a source which says "Billy Bob Thornton is not a vegan" we can talk- until then, this is all just hot air. Again, I can provide three solid sources which say he is a vegan- it's perfectly reasonable to say he's a vegan who occasionally does things that are non-vegan. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We could even throw in a clarificatory footnote if you think it would help, but I do feel that Thornton belongs on the list. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain how you can be a vegan and eat meat. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have already said that you accept that a vegan may occasionally wear leather or drink milk, so I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. In any case, this is not the place for this discussion. Now, do you have sources or a policy to cite, or is this all just hot air? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again at the Thornton interview. The article says that he is a vegan, but he "breaks" his veganism sometimes (to use a food analogy, I am on a diet even if I "break" the diet and gorge occasionally). Thornton doesn't plan to do this; when he eats meat, he "break[s] down". To be clear (but this is a side point) I don't believe that it's useful for people who eat meat to call themselves vegan; much better would be saying that they are aiming towards veganism, or are a flexitarian or something like that. I also don't think anyone, whether they self-identify as vegan or not, should be eating meat. But, right now, that's not important. What's important, here and now, is what the sources say. If he calls himself vegan, and reliable sources call him vegan, it is not our job to say that he isn't, whatever our own personal views. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the sources which say he is a vegan? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google Search threw up People (and MSN picked up the same quote), PETA, Dallas Observer, ABC News and this book. It's not exactly under reported. I suspect there will be others out there. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that I can see that say that he is a vegan. The sources you have quoted say that he says that he is a vegan but that he regularly eats meat.

That is not a minor quibble it is a simple contradiction in terms. At the top of this list it says 'All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet', that is not a correct statement about Billybob; he does not adhere to a vegan diet. The fact that he claims to be a vegan does not alter this fact. Self-identification is relevant but it does override everything else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One potential solution would be to have a "disputed vegans" section like we do at List of vegetarians where we can clarify Billy Bob Thornton's stance. That way readers will realize the case isn't clear cut and can draw their own conclusions. The Billy Bob Thornton case is a bit different to the stic.man or Bill Cinton cases, where they occasionally supplement their "vegan" diet with fish; when Billy Bob Thornton practises his vegan diet he is to all intents and purposes a practising vegan, but we can't just ignore the fact he likes to have "time out". Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I am not sure that 'disputed' is quite the right word but I cannot think of a better one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) On second thought, I am not sure what purpose such a list would serve, and it might eventually lead to the need for yet another list of 'nearly vegans' or 'probably not vegans'. Let us keep it simple, either you adhere to a vegan diet or you do not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And who determines whether people "adhere to a vegan diet or ... do not"? You? (To reiterate, I would not object to Thornton being included in the list with a footnote. Betty, I'm glad you see that there is a difference between the Clinton case and the Thornton case- I agree.) J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources decide, and in this case they clearly state that Thornton does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If this wasn't already silly, it is now. You have not provided a single source which says something like "Thornton is not a vegan". You have repeatedly asserted that he does not meet your particular definition of veganism (which, as it allows leather-wearing and milk-drinking, is a ridiculous definition of veganism anyway...) and claim that because you don't think he's a vegan, he shouldn't be on the list. You're welcome to go and create your own list on your blog, but this list is not based on your inclusion criteria- it's based on what the sources say, and the sources say he's a vegan (even if he might lapse sometimes). J Milburn (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the quoted source, he clearly does not, 'adhere to a vegan diet', which is the stated criterion for inclusion in the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Do people who converted to veganism not "adhere to a vegan diet" because they once ate things that weren't vegan? People lapse. It happens. You've already accepted that a vegan might sometimes lapse and have milk in their tea or wear leather, so I don't really understand what the difference is. J Milburn (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, people do not adhere to a vegan diet because they regularly eat meat.

I am not trying to make any point about what veganism is or should be and I am not trying to make a point about the subject's veganism. It is much simpler that that; the list is of those people who (currently) adhere to a vegan diet and someone who, according to their own comment in a reliable source, regularly eats meat does not belong on this particular list. The subject may be more committed to many of the principles of veganism than others who are on the list but that is irrelevant. Some people on the list may also regularly break their vegan diet but unless we have a source telling us this they remain on the list.

In order to keep things simple and easily verified, the list includes only those who (actually and currently according to a reliable source) adhere to a vegan diet. Thornton does not, according to reliable sources, do that, so he does not belong on the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reliable sources do say that he is a vegan. They also say that he sometimes lapses, but this doesn't change the fact that they say he's a vegan. What's difficult about this? J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing difficult but what is wrong with that is that there are different definitions of vegan, as discussed on this page. Thornton may well be a vegan by some definitions but not by the one that we use here. To make things simple and easily verifiable we have defined 'vegan' for the purposes of this list as 'those who adhere to a vegan diet'.

Does anyone else have a view on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a formal RfC. Hopefully, we can work out a neutrally-worded question which nonetheless identifies the issue and get some outside opinions. Hopefully, we could both agree to abide by the outcome of the RfC? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two other editors who have posted fairly recently. Let us first see what they say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an unusual case. I wouldn't class him among those vegans who "lapse" because these are people who do not intend to eat non-vegan products but sometimes give in to temptation. Thornton on the other hand follows a vegan diet except when he stays in Texas, where he fully intends to not follow a vegan diet. I suppose if he's not in Texas at the moment he's a fully practising vegan and there may well be other people on this list who consume a meat product before Billy Bob next drops in at Texas. On that basis I am leaning towards including him in some way on the list, although I think the manner of his inclusion should clearly indicate to the reader that he is unorthodox in his adoption of the diet. I have my doubts that an RFC would provide a clear outcome either way: I suspect many editors would be split on the issue and would probably back the option of including him but making the nature of his veganism clear. We can go to an RFC and let that play out, but I think it would be more productive to focus on a way to incorporate him into the list in a way that is acceptable to all of us. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Betty: I think that's a way of reading the source, but Thornton does say "every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here", so I don't think it's as deliberate as you make out. In any case, I have no objection to including Thornton with a footnote clarifying the fact he admits to eating meat while in Texas, especially if that's going to be a solution we're all happy with. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Betty, we have just got this list into some sort of order and one thing that helped with that is keeping it simple, for example no blue link no entry, simple, everyone can understand it and anyone can check it. Because veganism can be a complex subject and deciding who is a 'real vegan' is going to lead to endless arguments, we agreed on a simple criterion for inclusion; it is a list of people who adhere do a vegan diet. The advantage of this is again that it is simple, either a person does or they do not. Once we start to include people who wish they were vegan or support the vegan cause or are vegan most of the time every entry is going to be an endless series of arguments.

To put my cards on the table I am not a vegan and I have no strong feelings on the subject. I do not know who Thornton is or what he does and I do not care. I do not even care who is listed here provided that they meet the agreed criteria for inclusion. Once we start having exceptions, workarounds or we accept arguments that someone who regularly eats meat somehow adheres to a vegan diet the article will start to lose its focus and credibility.

Thornton may may be the most committed person on the Earth to vegan principles and he may bitterly regret that he eats meat when he is in Texas and consider it a terrible lapse of his commitment. He may be fully deserving of a place in the vegan hall of fame or of a medal for promoting veganism worldwide but he does not adhere to a vegan diet and should therefore not be listed here. It is as simple as that.

Perhaps J Milburn could give us his reasons for wanting Thornton listed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I feel we need to go with what the sources say, as per WP:RS and WP:OR. It is not our place to judge against our own preferred definition. The sources say that he is a vegan, which entails that he adheres to a vegan diet (as that's basically the most minimal definition of "vegan" out there), even if he may sometimes lapse. Saying we can't include him because he's not vegan "enough" when the sources say he's a vegan is just straight up OR. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is our place to judge against our stated criterion, based on what sources say. I think you are missing the point, if we had a list of people over 6 feet high and a person was 5 foot 11 1/2 but called himself the six foot wonder and everyone thought he was tall and he was known in some circles as a tall person, he would still not go in the list. No one has a right to be on this list; it is just a list of 'those who adhere to a vegan diet'. The source says that he describes himself as a vegan but that he does not adhere to a vegan diet. If the list were described as 'people who call themselves vegan' the he would be included. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And I think you're missing the point. The sources say that he does adhere to a vegan diet, but that he occasionally lapses. You're saying "No, those sources are wrong, he's not someone with a vegan diet who sometimes lapses into a non-vegan diet, he's just not a vegan." That's the kind of judgement I object to. If we were talking about someone who was referred to as a vegan by mistake - perhaps a confused journo referred to a dairy-free diet containing meat and eggs as a "vegan" diet - this would be different. But what you're asking us to do is go against what the sources say. If you want to run with the 6 foot analogy, you're saying we shouldn't include someone who the sources say is over 6 foot because you know he sometimes walks with a hunch, despite the fact he's mostly beaten it out of himself. (Or, even worse, sometimes walks with a hunch when he visits a particular place, which he does maybe once a year.) J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have both said all we have to say on this. Betty seems undecided on the issue. Perhaps Andy might like to comment.

Could we agree on this though. That we should have simple, clear, and easily verified criteria for inclusion in this list and that, whatever they are, we state them at the top of the list. We should then stick rigidly to them; no ifs buts or nearlies (or is it nearlys?). Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, I suggested an RfC- if we can agree on a neutrally-worded question, we could both agree to be bound by the outcome of the RfC (I'd be happy enough with a straw poll, to be quite honest). Perhaps you'd be open to that, now? J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not against a straw poll or an RfC but it would be good if we could agree on a principle first. Do you agree that we should have simple, clear, and easily verified criteria for inclusion in this list and that, whatever they are, we should state them at the top of the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I do, and it already does: we include everyone who is at least a dietary vegan (even if they do not otherwise live as a vegan), whether they are a dietary vegan for ethical, religious, health or whatever other reason. What's at stake here is whether someone who occasionally lapses but otherwise meets the definition can be included. We both think so - you have already said that you support the inclusion of someone who occasionally drinks milk - but we disagree about the particular case of Thornton. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, we agree about some things then. I fully understand that our disagreement is about whether Thornton meets the stated requirement.

Your second statement shows exactly what I am worried about though. I did not say that I would , 'support the inclusion of someone who occasionally drinks milk'. My actual words were, 'if he once wore a leather belt or put some milk in his tea that might be a different thing'. That is why I think we must apply the criteria strictly. Once we let in someone who occasionally eats meat we run into the argument of how often is 'occasionally'. Once a year/month/week day?

It has already started (see below). Soon I will be able to add myself to the list as I have undoubtedly unwittingly adhered to a vegan diet for some period of time in my life. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, so long as we ask the simple question of whether Thornton meets the currently stated criteria, I would be happy to go with an RfC. I think we should ask for yes/no answers only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed RfC wording

Editors here agree that one of the criteria for inclusion in this list should be, as stated at the top of the article, 'All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet'.

Based on the words reported in an interview with the subject, should this person be included in the list? This should be a very simple RfC which anyone should be able to respond to. Just a yes or no answer is required (with reasons if you wish).

[Link to sources on the talk page]

Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed wording, as I think it fails to identify our actual disagreement. How about this: J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This list consists of people who "are understood to adhere to a vegan diet". Billy Bob Thornton self-identifies as a vegan, and reliable sources refer to him as a vegan, but, in an interview, he admits to sometimes eating meat.

Interviewer: Are there certain things you have to do when you come to town, things that you miss when you're away?

Thornton: I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here.

Interviewer: You need your BBQ?

Thornton: Yeah, every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here.

Should Thornton be included on this list?

I do not see any reason to say, 'Billy Bob Thornton self-identifies as a vegan, and reliable sources refer to him as a vegan, but, in an interview, he admits to sometimes eating meat'. The only source we have is the interview, which I am happy to quote just as you have done above but we should not lead people with statements like, ' self-identifies as a vegan'. Let us give the only source we have and just ask yes or no. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. How about this: J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This list consists of people who "are understood to adhere to a vegan diet", but whether Billy Bob Thornton should be included is contested. The disagreement is based upon the following interview [with a link]:

Interviewer: Are there certain things you have to do when you come to town, things that you miss when you're away?

Thornton: I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here.

Interviewer: You need your BBQ?

Thornton: Yeah, every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here.

Should Thornton be included on this list?

That is fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

On the actual RfC page we should not put the text ofthe interview because that is not the place for sources, evidence, or arguments. There we should just state refer to 'an interview'. Also, I suggest that we say that it is a simple and easily understood question for which we would like a yes/no response, with reasons if wished. That may help us get a good response from a wide audience. Some RfC can look rather dull, complex, and technical and generally get a poor response.

I also suggest that we limit our own initial contributions to the RfC three or four lines stating our case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't think an RfC is a "place for sources, evidence, or arguments"? The text of the interview has to be there. It's precisely that text which we're arguing about, is it not? (In terms of my contribution to the RfC, I was just going to post the question and state that I feel Thornton does belong on the list. Nothing at all extensive.) J Milburn (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the page where the RfC is listed. The discussion will take place here where, of course, we must have the interview. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, agreed. Should I go ahead and start this below? J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. You need to follow the correct procedure as listed on one of the RfC pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues

Also, I think there are potential BLP problems with saying that someone's veganism is "disputed". I think we'd need a good source saying that it's "disputed", not simply a source which says they have done something non-vegan. (And, of course, that opens up problems with what constitutes doing something "non-vegan". I've heard people say that shopping at Tesco, having children or donating to the wrong charity is "non-vegan".) J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a potential BLP problem in using such a trivial characteristic as one's diet in a categorization scheme. If the list consisted only of people that were notable for being vegan, that would be one thing. Diet is generally a trivial characteristic, and that's what leads to the sourcing problems: a trivial characteristic is rarely supported by quality sources.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Veganism is central to the identity of many people; it's hardly like a list of people who have gluten-free diets, or a list of people who are allergic to nuts. If you are concerned about a particular entry being badly supported, we can discuss that, but I think that a general claim that "there's a potential BLP problem in using such a trivial characteristic as one's diet in a categorization scheme" is more than a little dismissive. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A list of people to whom veganism is a central aspect of their identity wouldn't bother me in the slightest. This isn't such a list.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In principle, I recognise the distinction- I'm just not sure how we would go determining whether that was the case with regards to any given entry. J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)