Talk:List of vegans/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bill Clinton back on the list

According to the Vegan Society veganism is "...a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

"seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable"; guess somebody who has been an omnivore for more than 60 years and then becomes a vegan, but once a week still eats some fish and cheese, also because one of his two doctors prescribed that, comes up to the definition of a vegan, as he "seeks to" and does "as far as possible". 82.169.109.213 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

At the top if this list it is made clear that the list consists of people who adhere to a vegan diet. That is done because it is a clear and factual criterion that can be verified. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have a different understanding of "as far as possible" as most people. Clinton still retains control of his diet i.e. he is not in coma in hospital with no choice over what is put into his drip. He retains the choice to follow a vegan diet or to not to. In this case he is clearly complementing a plant-based diet with animal products and just calling his diet "vegan". Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Especcially when somebody has been an omnivore for that long, it can be very wise, if not necessary, not to stop eating the kind of food the body is used to abruptly. Graduality can be much better in this context and that can very well go on for years. So once a week still some fish and cheese seems not to much deviation of the rule for a relatively new vegan of that age.

Of course theoretically the possibility is there to ignore the doctor's prescription, but that might be less in the interest of veganism and so vegan, than a slight (say 5%) deviation of the principle, as it could bring serious health risks and so the risk that the relevant person would become ill or worse so that he wouldn't be able any more to promote veganism like he does now (because of its benefits in the fields of environment and the costs of national healthcare).

Most likely there are hardly any vegans, that (can) observe the vegan principle fully. They all are forced to a certain deviation by circumstances; but that doesn't make them to non-vegans; otherwise there really wouldn't be more than a handfull, or maybe even none. 82.169.109.213 (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many definitions of what it means to be a vegan but this list includes, as it says at the top of the list, 'those who are believed to adhere to a vegan diet'. Bill Clinton does not adhere to a vegan diet so he does not go in the list, regardless of whatever vegan principle he holds. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I dare to pose here that not one of those who are mentioned in this list eat 100% vegan. Don't they for instance really never eat a peace of cake (in which as good as always eggs and/or butter are/is applied)? Don't they ever eat potatoes that have been fried in animal fat any more? Do they really all eat no bread any more, in which as good as always eggs and/or butter are/is applied? Do they really always drink their coffee without coffee-creme? And what about margarine and all those other seemingly vegan kinds of all day foodstuff (like even soup), that according to the label do contain whey powder and/or other (dry) milk components? Undoubtedly even when they conciously try to also avoid this kind of in themselves non-animal kinds of all day food, they repeatedly are in situations, in which they have no choise and so have to eat things like that for the simple reason that more vegan alternatives are not available there and then, whereas they have to eat something, or don't want to act difficult. This being so, the question is what the avarage percentage is in which famous persons who in principle adhere to a vegan diet (have to) deviate fom this principle in practise. Presumably this percentage is at least 10, which is more than just eating some fish and cheese once a week. So to avoid removing all the names from this list it might be preferable to add a sentence like the following one to the text ahead of the list:

(All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet, although their veganism may extend beyond just a dietary commitment.) It must be noted by the way that this adherence is a principal one, so that the fact that most if not all in practise most likely are forced by circumstances to deviate from the vegan principle to a certain extend, doesn't prejudice their being a vegan.
- 82.169.46.143 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• @82.169.46.143: You're wrong. I've eaten vegan for decades. I have travelled with vegans, in places (e.g. Montana, Southerh Utah, Italy) where it's hard to impossible to find vegan food on menus. I "picnic" a lot, but have also found places willing to cook me some simple vegan food. So, the people on the list will do the same.
• This is Wikipedia. As editors, we include content based on sources, not personal opinion. People should be on this list if a reliable source(s) can be found and cited, saying they meet the list's criteria. Often these sources can be found in the person's Wikipedia's biography article. An editor reads the source to verify that it backs up the vegan claim, then just cut-n-paste the citation to this article.
• Bill Clinton does not meet the criteria of this list.

— Lentower (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

People like Bill Clinton belong on a list of people who claim they are vegan, but also eat non-vegan food, or a list of people who mostly eat vegan. according to reliable source(s). It's not clear to me if either list belongs on Wikipedia AT ALL. If either does, it might be a separate section of this article (making this article a "List of Lists" article), or as a separate article. — Lentower (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You picnic a lot, but have also found places willing to cook you some simple vegan food. That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the people on the list therefore will do the same. The people on the list are celebrities you know.

"People should be on this list if a reliable source(s) can be found and cited, saying they meet the list's criteria." .

The title of this article is "List of vegans".

Now what is a vegan?

As said before: According to the Vegan Society veganism is "...a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

This Vegan Society is the oldest and undoubtedly most authoritative organisation in the field of veganism.

Somebody here said that "there are many definitions of veganism", but he didn't mention one other.

Of course everybody can decide for him- or herself what in his/her vision veganism is or should be, but that doesn't mean that his/her circumscription also is a definition of veganism.

About the same goes for the indeed many different ways in which dictionaries, encyclopediae, and many other sources describe veganism. These are no definitions, but as good as all, if not all, just descriptions of mostly non-insiders.

The definition of the Vegan Society by contrast is published as such in many reliable sources.

So when it comes to wheter or not meeting the criteria for this list, this definition can appropriately be handled as the one and only decisive criterium.

Now it's obvious, that the person this discussion is about "seeks to exclude AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE cruelty to animals" for at least food; (like most names that still figure on the list). (In how far he also does for other purposes is not mentioned in sources, so that this question is not relevant in this context).

82.169.46.143 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not Gates, but Jobs

Somebody recently added Bill Gates to the list. Unfortunately he or she didn't add any sources, as a result of which this addition was reversed. This reminds of the fact that Steve Jobs hás been a fruitarian and so a vegan, but later on "became a garbage can like everybody again", in his words.

“ I was actually a fruitarian at that point in time. I ate only fruit. Now I'm a garbage can like everyone else. And we were about three months late in filing a fictitious business name so I threatened to call the company Apple Computer unless someone suggested a more interesting name by five o'clock that day. Hoping to stimulate creativity. And it stuck. And that's why we're called Apple.

”

So this name could at least be added to the list of former vegans.

References

92.69.243.252 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove Capleton from headlines

I'd like to remove him from "featured vegan" on the left of the article. Indeed I think we should not promote capleton as a vegan because of his anti-homosexuel positions and lyrics of his songs which encourage to "burn them". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capleton#Criticisms or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Murder_Music for more informations. He can still appeared in the table though. Olivattaque (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider that as acceptable criteria for removing him. Just because someone adopts a moral stance in regards to their diet they are not required to be "progressive" in other aspects of their life. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but not with calling the relevant sexual attitude "progressive"; the progressiveness of a vegan lifestyle may be evident and to a certain extend scientifically prooved, but it most likely has to be called very doubtfull whether any kind of scientifical support is available for a statement that homosexuality is progressive in the litteral meaning of this word.

82.169.97.44 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about removing him, just don't making him appear on the right with his picture. It's not the fact that he is progressive or not, in that case we wouldn't care if it was just for himself, but he promotes homophobia with violence. I don't understand you on this... We could for instance replace him with Joaquin Phoenix that has been the voice for the documentary "Earthlings" Olivattaque (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of pictures of white Americans who aren't homophobic so why do we need another? The image gallery is supposed to be representative, so someone who is not white and not American and is homophobic is a good candidate for the gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Taryn Terrell Image

She was removed for being a former vegan so her image should be removed as well and possible replaced by another form the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dairyfarmer777 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will replace the image with Heather Mills who is renowned for her animal rights activism and veganism. Also, I notice Peter Tatchell is in the image gallery but isn't actually listed as a vegan, so I will replace his image with Mike Tyson. It will help to diverisfy the images and a boxer will be a good addition to the gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Russel Brand

The link used for Brand's former veganism does not actually say he stopped. It says "Sometimes I can't tell if someone is a vegan or a heroin addict and I've been both."

The sentence uses past tense "have been" but that is ambiguous. "Brand has been vegetarian since I was 14" for example says nothing about him still being vegetarian or not.

Is this enough to confirm being formerly vegan? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source doesn't explicitly say he has stopped then we shouldn't make assumptions. What he says is that he has been both a "vegan and a heroin addict", and all that really means is that he's not a "vegan and heroin addict" now. The way he words it is that he could have given both practises up, or just one of them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand it to be ambiguous but I don't read it that way as a "he's not a 'vegan and heroin addict' now" statement (the state of being both at the same time in the past but not in the present). I read it as he's only talking about the past state of being but omits whether that state had an ending (for both)(the state of being one in the past and the other in the past that may have overlapped or not and may have stopped or not ).

He was an addict at some point but doesn't state if he has stopped or has continued and that we was vegan at some point but doesn't state if he has stopped or continued. His statement only refers to the past but never says he stopped being an addict or vegan to think he has stopped one or both would require either another source or an assumption - the former which Wikipedia would need but not the latter which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "he's not a "vegan and heroin addict" now" Seems like an assumption as he doesn't say what he is now. We have other sources that he claims to be sober but none that say he stopped being vegan.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, by either interpretation we seem to both agree it doesn't conclusively suggest he has stopped being vegan. Betty Logan (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Too promotional

It is clear that some people would like to use this list to promote veganism by including as many of the good and the great as possible on this list.

Wikipedia must promote a neutral point of view

I am not sure exactly why we have this list but its purpose can never be to promote (or attack) veganism. We still have a highly promotional list of occupations for the entries, some listing the great works of the subjects. I suggest we remove that column altogether as it serves no purpose. As every entry has a wikilink so occupation is not required for identification purposes. Even the pictures are generally flattering and promotional.

We must also make sure that we have a clear, simple, and easily verifiable set of criteria for inclusion. This will, by the very nature of veganism, which covers a range of practices and beliefs, be somewhat arbitrary. The criteria must be applied strictly and uniformly to avoid any pro/anti veganism bias in the list. If we do not do this, every entry is likely to to become the subject of an RfC or edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

An RFC may not be a bad idea to determine what exactly this list should include. If explicit criteria is determined by the community then in theory decisions made in line with such criteria will be backed by consensus. The first question I suppose is whether "veganism" should be treated along the lines of self-identification (in line with sexuality) or as a factual criteria (as with nationality). The other approach—as suggested by Kww—which I am leaning to is to limit the list to people who are notably vegan in some way. There is a huge gap between a Peta regular like Pamela Anderson and someone like Bill Clinton who seems to use the word out of convenience. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how we could draw a non-arbitrary line between people who are "notably" vegan and people who just happen to be vegan. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn that it would be very hard to draw the line, in particular between 'notable vegan' and 'very notable' and vegan, that is to say, one of the good and great who happens to be vegan. I think using factual criteria, strictly applied, is the only way to ensure the list is neutral.

Perhaps someone could tell me what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have any. It's one of those articles that exists basically because it meets our notability criteria. The List of vegetarians has been AFD'd three times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (3rd) and it each time it wins enough support to survive. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep present criteria for inclusion

This comment is at the start of the article (as of version [1] and prior versions):

<!-- Only referenced people notable enough to have an article on English Wikipedia can be added to the list -->

<!-- Entries without references will be deleted -->

Many lists on Wikipedia have adopted one or both of these criteria to add an entry for an item that meets the list criteria(s). That is:

• The person must be notable. That is, there must be an article in the English Wikipedia about them, that is wiki-linked to. Note the arguments in WP:WTAF.
• Reliable source(s) must back up that the person meet the list's criteria, and be cited in this article.

I propose we develop a consensus to:

• actually use both.
• delete entries whose reference(s) do not verify that the entry meets the list criteria.
• add an Infobox at the top of this talk page stating this consensus.
• add this comment to the start of the article:

<!--The references must verify that the person meet the criteria in the lead.-->

Note that WP:Consensus is not a vote, but a joint decision made respecting the contributing editors' opinions, as well as {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}.

Please state your unindented position in the style used in administrative consensus processes like WP:AfD, as in the following example. If you comment on another editor's position or comment, use the usual talk page guideline of each user indenting another level.

* Agree XXX - User A

XXX is a non-WPian argument, because of YYY. - User Y

::In considering YYY, we also have to follow ZZZ. - User Z

* Disagree DDD - User D

* Comment We need to consider WP policy POL - User C

GLINE also has to be considered. - User G

I'll start. — Lentower (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree for reasons I gave above. — Lentower (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lentower, thanks for your interest and comment but you have jumped the gun a bit. You will see above a proposal to do what what you have suggested via an WP:RfC (in addition to the one on Clinton). As it happens we do pretty much have what you suggest. There has been a consensus for some time that subjects here must have an English WP entry and all entries must have a reliable sources showing that they conform to the criterion (stated at the top of the article) that they adhere to a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Martin, I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is. Of course a reliable source is needed to confirm that someone is a vegan, and of course an English Wikipedia entry is needed. Do you want to change anything? If you want to put a box at the top of the page just stating that this is the case, go ahead and do it. I won't revert you. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Len, while you are here, you might like to give your opinion on Billybob Thornton - see above. Should he be on the list?

Milburn, would you be happy to accept Len as an arbitrator over Thornton to avoid an RfC? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Your obsession with trying to avoid having a RfC is pretty revealing. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I do not have an obsession, all I am trying to do is to avoid unnecessary admin and work for others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for a while. Should we treat veganism purely as "self-identification" or should we treat it as factual criteria? At the moment we have a mishmash of both approaches: entry to the list is granted primarily through self-identification and we exclude certain people based on factual criteria i.e. we would permit Clinton on the basis that he calls himself a vegan, but we then further exclude him on the basis he complements his diet with fish and cheese which violates the factual criteria for being vegan. This approach is slightly inconsistent because there is essentially no way to compose a list without self-identification, but including people who eat meat and fish turns the whole list into a farce. I honestly don't think an RFC will resolve this issue, and I think there would be a split outcome resulting in a "no consensus". In that sense an RFC is more in Martin's interests than J Milburn's because if there is no consensus to add someone to the list the default position is to leave them off it. I think there is some middle-ground here, where we could have sub-section for people who are identified as vegans but still admit to eating non-vegan products occasionally. We can make the distinction between those who identify as vegan but still consume non-vegan products and those who rigidily observe a vegan diet clear to readers without compromising the integrity of the list too much.

Ultimately if it goes to an RFC one side is going to lose, so if there is an area of compromise available then I definitely think we should pursue that. If there really is no common ground then we should just get the ball rolling on the RFC, and just make sure it's a neutrally worded. If that's the route you want to go then both of you should summarise your stances in a couple of hundred words or less below (to stop one side biasing the discussion) and I will compose and file the RFC under the completely neutral question of "Should Billy Bob Thornton be added to the List of vegans?". Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it very hard to come to any firm conclusion about whether the inclusion should be based on self-identification or factual criteria without knowing what purpose the list serves, although, like most others here, I am drawn to using factual criteria. I think it is best to use whatever makes it clearest who belongs and who does not. Using self-identification would not have solved any of the current arguments. My only real concern is that this list is not used to promote a pro or anti vegan POV. At the present, as Len points out, we accept either a source saying that the person is a vegan, or saying that the persons says that they are a vegan, or that they adhere to a vegan diet. This seems to lend itself too easily to being used as a promotional vehicle for veganism. Only adding those for whom we can find a source saying that a person adheres to a vegan diet, as I think Len is suggesting, is a bit too restrictive, in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Something we should all agree on

I say above that this list must be neutral. It should not promote veganism by showing how many great, good, and successful statesmen, performers, artists, scientists, and leaders of all kinds are vegans. On the other hand, it should not represent vegans as a bunch of crazy weirdos, or as an unfairly small minority.

Can we all agree on this principle? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should, like all other Wp-articles, just be as informatively as possible, which in this case means that as many as possible names of well known perons, who provably say they are vegan, should be mentioned in it.

In case this leads to one of both mentioned consequences, than there is no valuable reason to try to avoid that. It's allways best to be realistic and just face the facts, so that everyone can draw his/her conclusions, no matter for instance certain interest groups may be concidered not to be pleased about such a developement.

It's very unlikely that there are any celebs, who falsely would say to be vegan, just to give this list more splendor; for what interest could they have in that? None, except in case they áre vegan indeed and feel called upon to make this public, knowing it can have a promotional side-effect. For the rest it may even be more comfortable for them not to make it public.

82.169.46.143 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Having 'as many as possible' vegans in the list may give the impression that veganism is more common than it actually is. I have no problem in having everyone who meets an agreed set of criteria in the list but that is not the same as having 'as many as possible'.

One criterion that is well accepted here is that the subject must have an English WP article on them. Because there is a large pool of editors, who generally are not concerned whether a person is a vegan or not, monitoring biographical articles, we can be reasonably confident that population from which we are choosing vegans is not biased either towards or against veganism. This criterion also has the great advantage that it is very easily checked and verified.

The real problem we have is in deciding exactly who is to be listed as a vegan. There are two extremes, one is to list only those who are confirmed by a reliable source to permanently and continuously conform to every principle of veganism and the other is to list anyone who has ever adhered to any principle of veganism or claimed to be a vegan. I think that most people would agree that the former criterion is too strict and would unfairly restrict the number of people on the list and thus present a negative POV on veganism but the second criterion is too lax and would result in too many people being on the list and thus present the POV that veganism is more popular than it actually is.

Somewhere between these two extremes we should find some, easily verified criteria that neither understate nor overstate the popularity of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned as well as other problems relevant to this article may be solved by bringing more diversification in it.

One of the questions that the current shape of the article most likely will raise with especcially other visitors who are familiar with veganism too, is the one what kind of vegan the mentioned persons individually are; who is a "dietary vegan", who is a "dietary vegan plus", (as those can be called who eat vegan and moreover practise the vegan principle in certain, but (by far) not all other aspects of their behaviour (e.g. avoiding the well known materials for clothing etc.)), and thirdly who are the "full vegans", that in all respects adhere to the vegan principle as described in the definition of the Vegan Society.

In the situation given those visitors will have to read the provided sources with every name, to find out the answer themselves.

This can relatively easily be improved by dividing the list in three relevant sub-lists.

Both sevice to readers and informative quality of the article subsequently can be improved further (perfectionated) by adding to each of these sub-lists two sub-sub-listst, of which one informs about those who háve belonged in the relevant sub-list (catagory), but don't any more, and the other about those who are known to nearly belong in it, which is the case when they adhere to the relevant principle for at least 70%; (a percentage that is handled in raw-foodism circles).

In this design for instance Bill Clinton could be mentioned in the second sub-sub-list under the sub-list of "dietary vegans".

82.169.46.143 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is most people don't say "I'm a dietary vegan", "I'm a vegan that eats honey", "I'm a vegan that doesn't wear leather" etc. They simply say "I am a vegan", so even by looking at the sources we can't differentiate between the majority of cases. If the entries clarify their position then a note can be added next to their name. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess most sources contain enough information to enable adding next to the names an indication about what kind of vegan the relevant person is/was.

It might be most efficient to use codes for that; for instance:

DV means Dietary Vegan

HDV means (own) Health Dietary Vegan

EDV means Ethical Dietary Vegan

EnDV means Environmental Dietary Vegan

EDVP means Ethical Dietary Vegan Plus, which says that the vegan principle is also practised in some other fields of behaviour than feeding; (e.g. non use of certain materials).

FV means Full Vegan, which stands for a vegan, who practises the vegan principle in all fields of behaviour; (e.g. see [2]).

Also possible are:

NDV, meaning Nearly Dietary Vegan (who's diet is vegan for more than 70%)

FoV and FoDV for Former (Dietary) Vegan. (Adding this item to the list means adding most interesting information, especcially for vegan and kindlike visitors; moreover it can reduce a possible promotional effect of the article).

195.241.138.113 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. 'Classifiying' people according to our own definitions is original research, and thus against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For sure Dietary vegans, Ethical vegans and Environmental vegans are not "our own", but usual classifications; (see intro of Veganism).

From here it must be not too difficult to add some info like "former", or "nearly", within the rules.

195.241.138.113 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So is this still no agreed to? Its a good idea to have labeling where applicable.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So, do we or do we not agree?

I thought it should have been easy to agree on what is a basic principle of WP. Is there anyone who does not agree that this list should not promote veganism and it should not deprecate veganism? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a basic policy, Martin. Editors don't have the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing with WP:NPOV; they are obliged to observe it with no exceptions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess all there is to discuss is how to apply that policy to this list. There seems to be a steady stream of editors using the list as a promotional tool for veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

http://vegetarianstar.com/2008/07/11/why-does-avril-have-to-go-and-make-veggie-things-so-complicated/

Someone recently removed Avril but they did it without commentary. I think this might be enough to justify her removal. Though she is mostly vegetarian or vegan because she prefers not to eat those she stops short to refer to herself as those because she will eat meat and dairy occasionally. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, obviously I wasn't aware of this when I restored her name to the list. I agree she should come off but this is why we need sources to remove people too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep sources and users need to use the edit summaries. When I saw that I did a search to see why and found that article. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

RZA

RZA http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/11/rza-promotes-veganism.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Angela Gossow

I made an edit through which I removed Angela Gossow from the list citing a specific place on her official Facebook page where she says she's only a vegetarian.

Betty Logan undid the edit citing WP:Reliable source as the reason. That's despite the fact that the guidelines say "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (WP:SELFSOURCE).

The official verified Facebook page for Arch Enemy has linked to a specific page for Angela Gossow, giving us every reason to take it as the singer's official page.

On that page, in the bio section she says: «I am a vegetarian, borderline vegan (I am allergic to most milk products). I am constantly cooking and baking when I am at home. I love blueberries. And fresh baked bread, hot from the oven coated in a thick layer of butter. Self-made marmalade. Cashew nuts. Salads. Goat cheese.»

So let's do something about the false information Betty Logan returned to the article. --Rose (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had made your case a bit more strongly first time around then I would not have returned the false reliably sourced content to the article. You did not provide a link to page in question. You did not establish the veracity of the page. You seem to be an experienced editor so you should know that isn't the correct approach to challenging reliably sourced content, but I have no problem with removing the information now you have done so. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My summary of the edit included all the specifics one may need to verify the information (google "angela gossow facebook", search for "borderline vegan" within the "bio"). There's no better way to do it because of the 250 character limit other than by going into a lengthy discussion over yet another former/disputed vegan, which is what I was forced to do due to what you had done. This kind of actions can be counterproductive.--Rose (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And what I mean by counterproductive is that if I were busy elsewhere, I might not have returned to this for a while and the false or outdated information that you brought back would be available to the public for the same amount of time. All because of your presumed unwillingness to at least try and verify what I had in the summary before making a change. The first Facebook page you'd come across would be the right one. --Rose (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is we wouldn't accept an addition to the list via a half-assed edit summary so removals should be held to the same standard in the cases where the information is reliably sourced. I also don't appreciate the assumption that your time is more valuable than mine either: if you have the link and can validate the veracity of the Facebook page then it shouldn't be left to me to chase down these details when you could just spare a couple of minutes to explain the edit on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rose, it is very important that information on this page (and anywhere else in WP) is reliably sourced, and provably so. It is not the job of our readers to track down sources which show the reliablity of a statement made in WP, it is up to the editor who adds material to add a reference which shows that the added material is correct.

This is a somewhat contentious page for some people and Betty is therefore right in strictly applying the WP:RS policy to this page. Without high quality referencing the page could easily become a list of rumour and speculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Penn Jillette

A recent People magazine article came out with Penn Jillette talking about losing a bunch of weight on a plant-based diet (Dr. Furhman's diet, specifically) and already someone has added him to this list but on Twitter, Jillette himself said "To be clear: I don't eat many animal products (like none) any more, but "vegan" doesn't describe me well." Since Jillette doesn't want the description of "vegan" to apply to himself I removed that entry. Helpsome (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the right call. According to the article he follows Dr. Fuhrman’s Nutritarian diet, and the article interprets this as meaning he doesn't eat animal products; however Jillette himself neither states he is a vegan or excludes animal products from his diet so we shouldn't make assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

More on occupations

I have tidied up the occupations for A-F to try and reduce them all to one or two words that best describe what the person does or did for a living (The normal meaning of 'occupation').

I may have made some mistakes and anyone is, of course, entitled to fix them, but there is a consensus to have just the occupation rather than a description of how or why the person is notable, or a list of the good or bad things that they have done in their lifetime. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to confirm the consensus for this approach before doing any more work on the subject only to find it reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am on board with this and I think your edits are fine so far. We don't need band names or need to know what films they have directed. If anyone feels that a more specific description is necessary in a particular case then hopefully they will discuss it here it first and tell us how the information informs the topic of the article. Exceptions can always be made but the rhetoric in the article needs to be toned down overall. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and occupation

As discussed above WP must have a neutral point of view. That means that this article should neither promote nor discourage veganism. For that reason I have started to simplify and tone down the occupations in this list. They should be short and accurate but not, as many are, promotional. As all entries have a linked WP article so anyone who wants to know more about a person in the list can follow the link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the revert by Vclaw I agree with Martin here: this article is simply a list of vegans, and much of the information is extraneous i.e. it does not matter if someone is a Reggae musician or a heavy metal musician or stars in the The Big Bang Theory or Veronica Mars. If readers are interested in these people per se they can follow the link to their biography. In all likelihood this list is going to grow in size as Wikipedia bcomes bigger so we should be judicious about the information we include. Martin's concerns about the promotional nature of the list are valid too and we can curb this by limiting the occupations to one or two words in most cases. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Martin and Betty. There is no need to list every accomplishment. Helpsome (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It should not list "every accomplishment", but it should say what they are known for, ie why are they notable. eg many of the musicians are members of bands, and that is why are famous, not for their solo works. So it should mention the name of the band. Or for sportspeople, it should at least say what sport they compete in. How is it helpful to change Brendan Brazier from "Triathlete" to "Athlete"? And some people are notable for more than one thing, it is POV to list one but not the other. And many of the changes are misleading, eg describing Matt Ball as a "company director". --Vclaw (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is Travis Barker known as an "entrepreneur"? Kristen Bell is an actress to credit her with "Veronica Mars" and "House of Lies" is to cherry pick what you think is most relevant. This is why their job and not their credits is what we should keep to. Helpsome (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Vclaw, I do not claim to have got everything right. There is no problem in correcting any mistakes or misinformation in what I have written but there is no justification for a complete revert.

We should not list what they are famous for. The field is called 'occupation' not 'memorable achievements' or 'famous for', I have never been sure what is purpose is but it is certainly not intended to show how good, great, and successful vegans are. That is promoting veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I hade done a few more. If in doubt, I am using the first occupation shown on the subject's bio page. This ensures that my edits do not in any way represent my personal POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the criteria for including an image?

How is it decided which images should be shown? Do we have the most famous, the most sucessful, a random selection, a selction balanced by age, sex, ethnicity etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There are four approaches as I see it:

1. Have no images except maybe for one in the lead.
2. We drastically reduce the number of images to just half a dozen or so people who are prominent vegans, but that would take on a promotional aspect.
3. We make the gallery "proportional" but then I think that would just bias the gallery to famous people in media such as actors/musicians etc.
4. We try to make the gallery representative i.e. half men, half women and try to make sure that each profession and country on the list have some representation. We should avoid duplication: if we have one white male American actor, we don't need another, for example. This is the approach I have taken in the last year or so.

Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to make the gallery "representative." Moreover making the gallery exactly 50% male is not representative at all. Most vegans are female, anyway. They are also not uniformly distributed by ethnicity. Wikipedia is biased toward notability. See also my specific concern below. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be biased towards anything per WP:NPOV. There are all sorts of reasons why representation is disproportionate on Wikipedia: there are more male editors than female, 60% of visitors are fom English-language countries, and 40% from the United States and this all has an impact on the coverage. If we constructed a gallery along the lines of representation on Wikipedia then the gallery should be full of white pop idols. Per WP:WORLDVIEW, editors should try to counter these biases and make articles neutral: this is a list of vegans, not English-speaking white vegans, and as such should reflect the statistical makeup of the worldwide vegan population as much as possible. If women are statistically more likely to be vegan than men then arguably the gallery should reflect this diversity, not merely reflect the editing interests of Wikipedia's readership. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)