Wikipedia

Talk:List of vegans/Archive 8

< Talk:List of vegans
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Psychologist Guy in topic Kat Von D
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

John A. McDougall: A vegan?

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should John A. McDougall be listed as a vegan? He has apparently been a "99.9% vegetarian for the past 28 years", though he's technically not a vegan because, according to McDougall:

Every other Thanksgiving, as a ceremony to prove I am not a vegetarian, I have an ounce of sliced turkey [...] I do not want to be thought of as a vegetarian because so many people who call themselves vegetarians are unhealthy.

It seems like a rather artificial attempt at avoiding classification on McDougall's part, however, so I'm not sure if he should be excluded. There is no indication that McDougall still continues this practice, either, so he very well may have stopped. Meanwhile, T. Colin Campbell is listed as a vegan despite stating (as noted on his Wikipedia article) that he follows a "99% vegan" diet. If Campbell is listed despite being 0.9% less strict in his veganism than McDougall apparently is, then I would assume McDougall should also be listed—either that, or Campbell should be promptly removed from the list.

And yes, I recognize that there is a difference between veganism and vegetarianism, but—to my knowledge—McDougall does otherwise follow a strict vegetarian ("vegan") dietary lifestyle and has indicated as much whenever he speaks about his personal diet, such as here.―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree with including either of them. Both are basically saying they more or less follow a vegan/vegetarian diet but aren't full vegan/vegetarian, or don't regard themselves as such. I think both should be kept off the list. Betty Logan (talk) 14:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Bree Olson not vegan

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1 working reference uses past tense & she posted a picture on her twitter eating all sorts of cheese products: Twitter Post --65.157.96.234 (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 33 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Adam Lanza

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

32.216.149.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has made repeated attempts to remove Adam Lanza from the list, under various rationales ranging from the fact that it is a "baseless rumor" to their own interpretation of veganism.

First of all these rumors are not baseless: this is what people who knew Lanza told the FBI during their ivestigation and a quick Google will reveal there are a multitude of sources reporting this. Can this be established as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt? Of course not, but neither can it for the other names on the list, and it is not necessary either because the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Given that this was something that was revealed during an FBI investigation the case for Lanza's inclusion on the basis of the news reports is much stronger than much of the "celebrity gossip" reporting that other list members are added under.

Second of all, the IP is applying their own particular interpretation of veganism, which is WP:Original research. As the lead makes clear the definition of veganism ranges from just adherence to a diet to a whole lifestyle and the lead makes it clear this is a list of people who adopted a vegan diet. Their veganism may extend to other aspects of their lifestyle but the list is not concerned with that. If he were a cannibal you could argue that the known facts about him contradict the claims about him and that may form a sufficient basis to exclude him from the list, but that is clearly not the case here.

Wikipedia is not for WP:ADVOCACY. If you wish to challenge Lanza's inclusion here—or anybody's for that matter—then it needs to be done within the legitimate framework of Wikipedia's policies i.e. either through sources that make counter-claims or a valid challenge to the source's status as a WP:Reliable source. In the case of the latter I doubt that would be sufficient anyway because their are numerous other sources reporting the same information. Betty Logan (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Go to 32.216.149.168's talk page to see his or her argument. By the way: 32.216.149.168 is not the first person that tried to remove that monstrous mass murderer; look at View History. It seems that Betty thinks just about any famous/infamous person can be a vegan as long as they are previously rumored to fallow at least 0.01% of the diet. Asking for counter-claims? Betty wants people to prove a negative? Logical fallacy: burden of proof. Simply saying that a source is "verifiable" does not count as evidence. If you can cite the same rumor over and over again, it's still a rumor. Anyone can make up rumors about their "friends." It's not evidence. It isn't only Betty—many others on Wikipedia have been aggressively redefining things to their whims, citing bogus evidence, while patting each other on the back with fake awards. There are many "verifiable sources" saying that Wikipedia is Ministry of Truth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.149.168 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Two other editors have reverted you besides me. The basic dictionary definition of a vegan is somebody who does not consume food that comes from animals and abstains from using animal products. This is a list of people who reliable sources have reported follow a vegan diet; that is made perfectly clear in the lead and Lanza is no different in that regard to anyone else on the list. Your personal view on the matter does not take precedence over policy: Wikipedia is not a vegan propaganda site. Reliable sources report that he is vegan, and unless you can produce sources that explicitly counter that claim then he will remain on the list. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
I mainly agree with Betty on this, but I followed the link and found out that there's no Wikipedia article on Lanza in particular. His name links to a section of the article about the shooting. This also applies to Sean Brennan and the link to his musical project London After Midnight. Isn't this a problem? --Rose (talk) 08:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Generally redirects are permitted on the list: Rubén Albarrán, David Desrosiers, Alan Donohoe, Bryan Erickson (musician), Adam Fisher, Mandy Lee (singer), Josh Max, Toby Morse, Randy Randall, Dean Allen Spunt and Shane Told all redirect to other articles that only mention them, so Lanza is no different in that regard. As far as I know the vegan and vegetarian lists have always permitted redirects to acommodate band members that don't have their own articles. I am open to a discussion about whether redirects should be permitted or not but that's a completely separate discussion to this one IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 09:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

So someone can torture and kill millions of animals but as long as they do not eat any, they are vegans? Read the first paragraph on Wikipedia:List of vegans. "Veganism extends from observing a vegan diet" The last time I checked, "extends from" does not mean, "is only about." Propaganda is a very loosely defined word. I assume you mean "the particular doctrines or principles propagated by an organization or movement."[1] Back to Wikipedia:List of Vegans: Sure, it says, "All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet, although their veganism may extend beyond just a dietary commitment." but isn't an article on vegans supposed to adhere to all of the propaganda of the movement? If one only strives to eat like a vegan, one is not a vegan, one is simply on a plant-based diet. Here is the non-Wiki-skewed definition form one major vegan group: "A philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." [2] You cannot ignore the massive cruelty that he dealt, onto those humans, at the end of his life. Humans are animals[3]. Most real vegans and biologists agree that humans are animals too. You can't be vegan for a day, eat bacon or buy leather the next, and call still yourself a vegan — it's a commitment to the very end of your life. Therefore, Adam Lanza nullified his rumored veganism, just before he died. I'll like to see you try to "verify" this rumor-based hoax some more.

You are using one extreme interpretation as a pretext for removing a legitimate entry. As Wikipedia's own article makes clear "veganism" is an umbrella term and encompasses a whole spectrum of practises and lifestyles. The criteria for this list reflects the common dictionary definition and and embraces anyone whose lifestyle is consistent with any definition of veganism. You have resumed edit-warring to impose your own preferred version of the article without obtaining a consensus, and if you continue I will have no choice but to request some kind of sanction. If you wish to pursue this you should file a WP:Request for comment and let the normal Wikipedia procedures resolve the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 12:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Your interpretation is sloppy and does not accurately describe the intent of this group's majority—to minimize animal suffering and exploitation. What is about that entry that you think makes it legitimate? This "umbrella term" malarkey is merely your opinion. This website does not do background checks for its editors. How does anyone know that this "Betty Logan" does not have interests in smearing veganism? Why have it up if there isn't a consensus? Do you even listen to and comprehend my side of this discussion?
Wikipedia does not attach itself to one particular point of view: it neutrally presents all points of view. It is not interested in truth, it is interested in verifiability. On that note Adam Lanza conforms to one of the definitions of veganism according to reliable sources; ergo, he is included here. If you think my conclusions here are at odds with Wikipedia policy then you should follow my advice and file a request for comment. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I see that I am arguing with someone that has a lot more influence on this site, thinks that a rumor is a reliable source, and thinks that vegans can be mass murderers (among other non-vegan things). Maybe others will step up to handling this. I already knew that Wikipedia is not always reliable. Thanks for confirming this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.216.149.168 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dictionary.com/browse/propaganda
  2. ^ https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal#Etymology
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think the list gallery should aim for a broad cross-section of vegan representation. In the past it has tended to skew towards white American male celebrities and we really need to attempt to keep systemic bias at bay. There is no indication that men are more prone to becoming vegan than women, or that it is statistical more prevalent among white people or Americans so we need to keep that in mind and make sure they don't dominate the list. Obviously we don't need to go PC crazy on this but I think it is in the interests of the list to avoid over-representation IMO. This is how it currently breaks down:

  • Total – 46 images
  • Men – 23
  • Women – 23
  • American – 18
  • White – 30 (excluding Hispanics and Latinos)
  • Performing arts – 17 (excluding athletes)

Obviously looking at the gallery we have a good split between men and women so we should try to maintain that. Americans and the performing arts make up a good chunk of the list, and their current representation is slightly over one third of the gallery which again I think is an acceptable percentage. They comprise a good chunk of the list and that is reflected in the gallery but without dominating it. However, I think whites are over-represented, currently by 2:1. I think we could perhaps take the gallery up to 50 images, and we could drop say about 5 whites and add 9 non-caucasions, which would make it an even split between whites and non-whites. Betty Logan (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

please add two people to the List of vegans

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not know how to add people to a list. I logged in and clicked on edit, but it is too complicated for me to type in two famous people who are not currently listed:

Craig Ferguson, Comedian and Talk Show Host. His vegan diet is documented in 2 ref: his Wikipedia profile [[1]], and at http://www.clearlyveg.com/blog/2016/03/31/craig-ferguson-talks-veganism-live-kelly-and-michael-video

Colin Kaepernick, NFL Football player His vegan diet is documented in 2 ref: his Wikipedia profile https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Kaepernick, and at http://www.clearlyveg.com/blog/2016/08/31/colin-kaepernicks-loss-muscle-mass-blamed-vegan-diet-instead-multiple-surgeries

It would be greatly appreciated if someone could add these two with citations to the List of vegans. Thank you!

Breeze2u (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC) Breeze2u (also vegan)

Done. Thank you for providing us with the information. Ojo del tigre (talk) 04:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 19 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of vegans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Help!

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi fellow editors, I wanted to ask you something. I have sporadically edited this list for about two years and inspired by that, I devoted myself to start and work on List of songs about animal rights daily since May because I believe it's a relevant topic but barely covered in Wikipedia. When I created it, the page was nominated for deletion,[2] and for good reasons, and I tried to fix its issues and only one editor has helped me. The voting was a bit inclined to keep the page, and this was our last revision working on it before another editor cut almost all the lead-in and the list of songs (as you can see in its current state),[3] and obviously I don't agree with the criteria used.[4]

I don't ask you to be on my side necessarily, but I think there are several people interested in animal rights here and, especially, there are people who are a lot more experienced in editing lists, their discussions, in Wikipedia policies, and with these kinds of issues than I am. So, for any help (contributing to the discussion, recovering the inclusion criteria agreed upon initially, trying to keep it, finding sources for the songs, voting, etc.) I would be really grateful. If this request is not allowed, I have no problem with removing it. Kind regards, Ojo del tigre (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

The message is neutral enough, but you should probably removed the named editors to avoid the appearance of canvassing. I don't want to just jump into an AfD and make a quick judgment so I will take a closer look at it some time this weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

'See also' inclusion of List of vegans and List of vegetarians

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Adding a link to these lists in the 'See also' section of their entries seems reasonable if the diet is mentioned on the pages. Many individuals see it as a large part of their lives, and directly or indirectly promote the diets by adhering to them. A few years ago I added these links to the individual 'See also' sections, and was reverted. During the time that they 'stuck' they increased views of these lists substantially, showing reader interest (similar to my interest when first finding the lists). Can they be added again? Thanks (placed a "discussion alert" note on the List of vegetarians talk page). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I think if the person in question is notable for their vegetarianism or have engaged in vegetarian activism of some nature then that should be ok, but I can appreciate that some editors don't want tons of articles spammed with links to this list when someone's diet is largely incidental. Ultimately editors at this page can't really decide what is included at other articles they are not involved with, so invariably some of these links will stick and some will not. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
That could be this page's suggested use, that if the diet is mentioned on the page then a See also is suggested (and to that point, there is no 'List of carnivores', so these two lists already stand out as notable). The reason I'm formally asking is that when these were added several years ago Graham87 reverted them all in good faith, so a formal "go ahead" would be needed. Maybe Graham has changed his stance. In the 1980s and '90s vegetarian activists loved these kind of lists, and promoted them in their literature, which goes to interest level (as did the uptake in views of these two pages during the short time they were included in See also sections). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Nope, I haven't changed my stance. I'd agree with their inclusion in a see also section if they were notable for their vegetarian/vegan activism, but in that case, they should be in the vegan/vegetarian navbox which contains a link to the relevant article, and therefore the rules say a link to the list shouldn't be included in a see also section. Graham87 03:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Add Alex Morgan?

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The US soccer star? --Smilo Don (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Alex Morgan

Merge proto-vegans

Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

List of proto-vegans is unnecessary: we don't need a second list of 12 entries of vegans from a certain arbitrary date. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I created that article and it hasn't had much traffic. I agree, not worth keeping both. I will merge it soon. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:54, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Won’t this cause RS issues when citations will not be found that explicitly say these folks who lived before the term was coined are vegan? --Nessie (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
No RS issues. We have reliable sources describing Amos Bronson Alcott, Conrad Beissel, Georges Butaud, Roger Crab, Lewis Gompertz, Russell Thacher Trall, Sophie Zaïkowska as vegans. Trall for example authored the first American vegan cookbook. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't really think this is an issue of "merging". If these people are described as "vegans" by reliable sources then they should be added regardless. If not, then they shouldn't be added at all. List of proto-vegans probably should be just deleted for failing WP:LISTN. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, just add the to the list of vegans, per nom and comments above. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of images

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Betty Logan can you explain per policy why you have been removing images from this article? Your explanation for removing images was "Images are depictions and therefore not a true likeness". I don't see that in any policy. Lewis Gompertz for example was a notable vegan. The images help the article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

The article looks a bit odd with hardly any photographs. The list is much longer than the few photos on the right. I would suggest adding appropriate images, not removing them. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
The policy is WP:NOCONSENSUS. I did not agree with all of your additions and hence a consensus does not exist to add them as yet. The article does not exist to promote vegetarian advocacy so I do not agree that the gallery should adopt a promotional approach to image selection. There are also around 50 photographs in the article, so I would not exactly describe that as "hardly any". My reasons for removing the photos are as follows:
  1. Images have an adverse impact on loading times and the cost of metered connections. Fifty images is a lot of images (I suspect there are not many articles on Wikipedia with so many images) so IMO more images should only be added if they add to the encyclopedic value of the article.
  2. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE states that "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative" and "Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate". The photographs at least capture a likeness of the person but in some cases artistic depictions were created by people who never met the subject, and most are never a true likeness. In this sense I would argue that depictions tip the balance into being decorative. We can't have an image of everyone and there is no shortage of photographs available, so it seems more appropriate to select photographs than artistic depictions.
  3. Since we can't have an image of everyone in the gallery then a selective criteria must be applied. I think it is best to have a broad cross-section in the gallery i.e. men and women and black and white and from a range of occupations and countries. Media personalities from Western countries are over-represented IMO, and helps create the impression that veganism is a geo-cosmopolitan lifestyle rather than an ethical approach to living. To this end I removed the musician you added (there are several already in the gallery and I don't see what adding another adds to the article). Likewise we don't need more than one American physician, or more than one French anarchist. One will suffice when there are still countries and occupations that are not represented so I would rather see more representation than redundancy.
While I removed some of your additions I also retained some as well. I hope this adequately answers your question. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Betty Logan - a well-considered compromise. I have updated the Benjamin Zephaniah photo, although I should declare that it is one I took myself. Edwardx (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't realise there was about 50 images on the article already, for some reason I only thought there was about 20. I mostly do editing on historical articles so the people in the 1800s or earlier we did not always have photographs for, only usually sketches or paintings so that's why I added them. Thanks for explaining all that to me. I pretty much agree with your points. A balance of country and occupation is a good idea. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

More vegans

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Ruediger Dahlke: Source --Carmol7 (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

What about those who say they are NOT actually vegan?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/mixed-multitudes/matisyahu-is-vegan/ “I’m not exactly vegan, not religiously like keeping kosher at least” — but also added, “I stopped eating chicken and red meat ’cause I just figured it would be more healthy. I figured it would be more ideal to stay away from eating animals, from having meat sitting and digesting in my gut.” He talks about the kapparot ceremony (“the closest I ever came to an actual chicken”) and how freaked out he was — “the blood, the dirty chicken feet, the sh*t everywhere.”

T. Colin Campbell, Peter Ebdon, Craig Ferguson, Chloe Temtchine, Barry White are/were not vegan as far as I can tell. Please remove to an appropriate list if I won't find time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralArmorus (talk • contribs) 10:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

They should be removed and added to #Mistaken/disputed above (along with the source saying they are not vegan). Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
There could be a list for those who have contributed to the vegan movement{e.g. T. Colin Campbell, John A. McDougall, MD} but are not vegan (and tell others that they are not); I suspect that this list is not a list that should include them. But those who did the science underlying the stability and sustainability of whole foods plant-based VEGAN diets are not doing inconsiderable work in knowledge production. Which side are you on, or which information became a basis for your changing your mind. MaynardClark (talk) 00:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Non-reliable sources

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, (and I'm assuming all the people on the list are alive) you may not use unreliable sources in this instance. "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

I have removed 46 citations that do not qualify as high-quality sources or reliable sources. (I don't purport to have gotten them all.) I'm bending the rules by leaving the entry of the person in the table and tagging them as "citation needed". I'm doing this in order to give editors some times to roust up some reliable sources, and because restoring content in a table is a lot more difficult than restoring a sentence or two of prose. It's also easier for you to spot which ones need to be hunted up, by searching the list for "citation needed".

However, I will revisit this page in a few days and I may well delete those entries with "citation needed" tags remaining.

— Normal Op (talk) 02:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

List inclusion/exclusion tips

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Those who are no longer vegans: Considering the name of this list-article is "List of vegans", I find it incorrect to have a statement in the lead (supposedly part of the inclusion criteria) which says "All the people on this list reportedly for some time during their lives practised a vegan diet." If that's the case, and you KNOW someone who is no longer a vegan, it would be incorrect (per WP:BLP and other wiki policies) to keep them on this list. I'm not suggesting one should periodically re-verify everyone on the list. For example, if I once upon a time practiced veganism, and now am no longer vegan, and I found my name on a Wikipedia list saying I was a vegan, I would be pissed because you're telling an untruth about me. Hence, our policies at WP:BLP.

Those who are dead: I noticed at least one person on the list who is dead. That doesn't fit in with "List of vegans" title, either, not expressly, however you could create a second table for "Dead vegans" (come up with a better title, please). You can force a table of contents so that there's a link at the top for someone to click on. It's easy enough to locate the dead people: mouse down the list, hover over each name, and see if someone is dead (they'll have a date of death usually in the first sentence).

Those who are not individual people: I also see a "group" at the top of the list, "8 Foot Sativa". That doesn't make sense to have a "group" as an entry because group members can change (especially bands!). Either add all the names of the group members into the table, or leave it out.

— Normal Op (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

People who are known to be no longer vegan are removed and added to the list at the top of this talk page. A record is maintained so they are not added back with an older source. I disagree with removing dead vegans. Many lists of famous vegans in reliable sources include dead vegans. We wouldn't, for example, remove a dead Jew from a list of notable Jews etc. It is understood by readers that a lifestyle or dietary choice pertains to somebody who was alive when they made that choice. If somebody dies vegan then it still characterises their life. Creating a second table for dead vegans is pedantic; the fact that you characterise them as "dead vegans" illustrates that being dead/alive is not intrinsic to being characterised as vegan. I do not accept that including dead vegans on the list is inconsistent with the title; but even if it were, the title was chose to describe the content not the other way around so the solution is choosing a better a title, not culling content. Betty Logan (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
A great many very GOOD human vegans are NOT on the list. Perhaps this should be 'list of famous vegans' with the key characteristic of concern being their fame or notoriety, and their vegan diet as secondary. Many who look to science or sensitivity to others are driving concerns are not highly motivated to seek visibility and notoriety. That the list is complicated by the requirement for notoriety seems problematic when considering the various 'ideas' tagged AS being 'vegan' (ethical veganism, best health pursuit, weight loss, religious teachings pointing toward veganism, easiest or cheapest version of something else (macrobiotics or raw foods), effective altruism pointing to veganism, etc. Surely those not familiar with the breadth of human community that is characterized BY vegan dietary practices would not want to spend thinking time trying to develop a better, more robust article with intellectual 'color' and nuances that help readers understand the multiplicity of what the term 'vegan' variably connotes in friendly practice. MaynardClark (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
The criteria for inclusion isn't fame or notoriety, it is notability which is consistent with WP:CSC. It is essentially a list of notable vegans, but WP:LISTNAME prefer simple and concise titles and recommends omitting descriptors such as "notable" from the title. In that spirit that is why we don't call the article List of notable living and dead people who have an article here on Wikipedia that are dietary vegans or were at the time they passed away. Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree there's no problem with including dead people in this list.
I see most of the sources Normal Op removed are PETA-related. I certainly don't consider PETA reliable in general, but if they report that a celebrity they've interviewed said they're vegan, and that celebrity has not publicly disputed or denied that claim, I don't think there's a problem. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
WP:BLP is clear that sources have to be high-quality sources. Please read the lead paragraph of WP:BLP for the rest of what is said on that. As for peta.org for citations, please see WP:ABOUTSELF where it reads: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, ... so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity." Waiting for a celebrity to notice what is in a Wikipedia article about themselves and seeing if they object... well that ain't ever gonna happen, dude. Most of these celebrities are Hollywood celebs, and they will take all the attention they can get. It increases their value. They are NOT going to butt heads with PETA and their advertising machine unless they plan on retiring immediately. It's been tried. Careers have been ruined. PETA may not be a reliable source for Wikipedia, but they yield a lot of sway for public opinion (some public). And public opinion is all that keeps a celebrity a celebrity. All that aside, Wikipedia policy is clear. There should be no bending of these rules just because it seems harmless to call someone a vegan. Normal Op (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
As made clear by SMcCandlish here -- a far more experienced Wikipedian than you are -- Adrian J. Hunter has it right. But by all means, continue your wikilawyering. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions for avoiding more AfD's

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of vegetarians#The problem with this list that applies equally to this list. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Pamela Anderson

Latest comment: 3 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I added Pamela Anderson to the list of former [probably never was] vegans. I found one citation but remember seeing others. In one she described herself as a "West Coast [Canada] vegan", admitting she ate salmon and other seafood. Unfortunately, I can't afford the time to find more/better ones.

The sentence, "All the people on this list reportedly for some time during their lives practised a vegan diet", is awfully convoluted. I suggest something more simple & direct like, "The people on this list have claimed to eat a vegan diet for at least some time during their lives". But more specifically add, "but not all became vegans, or maintained the lifestyle".

Thanks. --82.132.241.149 (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Court documents filed against her (as detailed in https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/rick-salomon-calls-pamela-anderson-serial-baby-killer-in-court-docs-2015143/) are a reliable source for the content of the divorce petition, they are not a reliable source for disputing her status as a vegan. Her husband makes a litany of complaints in the petition and she may well have challenged the factual basis of those allegations. Given her prominence as a vegan and animal rights activist you will need a more unequivocal source than unfounded allegations by her husband. I am aware that Anderson has sometimes struggled with her vegan diet but occasionally falling off the wagon does not bar someone from being on the list. If she regularly makes exceptions (i.e. she still eats dairy milk chocolate or has scrambled eggs for her breakfast) that would precipitate her removal from the list. Betty Logan (talk) 07:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's another corroboration. It's beyond doubt or question.

The 50-years-old star appeared on the UK breakfast show “Good Morning Britain” and describes herself a ‘nasty vegan’ who still has meat cravings and falls off the wagon.

She said: “I’m a naughty vegan. I try not to, but I’m not a dictator. I try to do the best I can. If you eat less meat, you’re doing something better for the planet.”

Court proceedings are under oath, a higher standard of evidence than required for wikipedia. Your exceptional interpretation does not stand.

Another, The Guardian in September 2018.

“If you’re Canadian, like me, and grew up in the coastal areas, sometimes you think if you’re vegetarian, you can still eat fish.”

Not vegan. Not even vegetarian. But a perverter of vegan & vegetarianism. A reducetarian at best.

--Danny Mamby (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have done a brief search for reliable sources about Pamela Anderson's veganism. Most sources are sites from vegan or vegetarian advocacy websites or tabloid newspapers. The only source I found from a reliable source is this one from the Guardian - https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2018/sep/19/pamela-anderson-on-never-wearing-leather-again-i-call-myself-a-naughty-vegan . This source suggests her veganism is variable at best. Robynthehode (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, that was my conclusion too. "I live in France, I eat croissants. I do the best I can. If you’re Canadian, like me ... you can still eat fish." WTF, French croissants certainly aren't vegan. That's several references over a period of years, so she's not even vegetarian.
Even on her own foundation's website, she reports, [5]"Brunch has been laid out in a suite upstairs, where Pamela ignores the elaborate platter of fruits and goes straight for the buttery croissants while ordering a cappuccino ... "I am not strict about veganism because I don’t like deprivation of any kind"" Danny Mamby (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Robynthehode: Thank you for providing the source I requested. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Danny Mamby: If you wish to avoid being reverted in the future it would be beneficial to familiarise yourself with the WP:Reliable Source and WP:Original research guidelines. That aside, welcome to Wikipedia and I hope you enjoy editing here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Betty Logan I was right, you were wrong. Please familiarize yourself with that. To be quite frank, the "crack whore", to quote the article referenced above, didn't warrant the time and energy to provide a better reference. Where questions about references are raised, you should invest a little time and energy in yourself. Danny Mamby (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Danny Mamby I am sure Betty Logan will respond if they see fit. But I thought I'd comment as I was the one that provided the reference. Although your assertion about Pamela Anderson was correct (which has improved the article) you are wrong in thinking that it is incumbent on other editors to search for reliable sources to support your assertions. I made the search because I was surprised to note that Anderson was supposedly not a vegan but it was up to you to substantiate that claim prior to me doing it (and it wasn't hard to find that Guardian source which you noted anyway but did not provide a link). In addition please take any successes with a little more grace. We are all here to try to improve the encyclopaedia and approaching editing and discussions with other editors in a combative way will do you no favours. Just friendly advice. Robynthehode (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Danny, we do not remove reliably sourced claims from Wikipedia because we disagree with them or because we "heard it somewhere". Neither are filed court papers a reliable source per WP:BLPPRIMARY. This has nothing to do with being proven right or wrong, and everything to do with how you undertook the edit. It is not my job to go looking for references to corroborate your edit, and neither is it RobyntheHode's. Please respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in the future if you wish to avoid further conflicts like this one. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Betty Logan Like I said, you were wrong. You should learn from that and prioritize being right above and beyond "just following rules", throwing your weight around, wasting other people's time and energy, and creating illwill, as you have done.
Now that would improve the Wikipedia. Danny Mamby (talk) 21:45, 2 December 2020 (UTC) priggery
Danny Mamby you have made some good observations but you are being too aggressive in what you say here and on another talk-page and yes can get blocked for this by the admins. I understand veganism is a bit of a sensitive topic for some people and it can become a battleground. I have seen so many users this year blocked for attacking each other over this topic and no its not a temporal block, its a full indefinite ban. It seems some users would rather attack each other than discuss content in this area. The most important thing is we need to work together on Wikipedia and respect each other.
But back to the issue at hand it seems the issue is resolved. Pamela Anderson is not a vegan, you have found sources that indicate this and it has been corrected, so well done. If you are interested in improving articles related to veganism or vegetarianism there is a wikiproject you can join found here [6]. But if you attack or are are rude to other editors on different talk-pages you will just end up being blocked from this website, so hopefully you can reflect on this and you don't continue that. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Psychologist Guy Thanks, but I stand by what I said, and the principles behind them. Betty Logan clearly needs to get her priorities in the right order and not waste others time and work. Danny Mamby (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add Earthling Ed

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I do not understand code, so I cannot edit the page but his name is Ed Winters and he is a Vegan activist and YouTuber under the name Earthling Ed. Thank you. 89.92.1.69 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

His Wikipedia article was deleted so unless it is recreated and there is a consensus for that then its unlikely he will be added to the list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Where to find vegans to add

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Wikidata allows you to pull up a list of vegans, which can help expand our list. Wikidata currently contains 191 vegans with references for their veganism, and 95 without. Several are not mentioned here yet (English singer-songwriter Kate Nash, for example, which I just added). You can find the Wikidata list of vegans using the Wikidata Query Builder].

  • Here is a link to the query you need to run (lifestyle:vegan - filter for with reference if you want).
  • You can download the list with links to the Wikidata page (e.g. Miley Cyrus in several formats, e.g. CSV. The Wikidata item includes the link to the reference. Sometimes download doesn't work from that page. If so, click on "Show query in the Query Service", hit the play button ("Execute the query") and download from there.
  • Open the CSV file in Excel / Google Sheets / OpenOffice Calc or similar.
  • Copy and paste in the List of vegans and run a VLOOKUP to compare the lists. Note that Wikidata distinguishes between current and former vegans, using the end time property. I don't know how to code in the Wikidata Query Builder, but there's probably a code to filter out former vegans, i.e. people with a (nonempty) end date for veganism.
  • Add missing vegans to List of vegans, copying the reference for veganism from their Wikidata page. You could also use this method to add information in Wikidata.

Happy editing --Trimton (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Aph Ko's Black Vegans Rock has a list of vegans here --Trimton (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Images on the right

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

On mobile, the images of a selected sample of vegans are displayed before the list. Readers are forced to scroll through them all, which takes quite a prohibitive while. Does anyone know how we would we let the images show after the list? Or do you see other alternatives? Tagging User:Timtempleton and User:Guy Macon who responded to this as aWikipedia help desk question Trimton (talk) 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

If you can find another Wikipedia page that has a bunch of images that show up after the text I could imitate what that page did. If possible, a rows and columns table with thumbnails would work a lot better on desktop. Otherwise you will need someone who is better at Wikipedia tables than I am. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I think thumbnails would bloat the table too much. The problem is that Wikipedia is 20 years old and was designed for desktop and notebook resolutions per WP:RESOL. The software simply doesn't facilitate both desktop and mobile resolutions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Try it now. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Layout

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

The current article layout just doesn't work (on most screens).

  • The photo gallery of vegans only work on medium- wide desktop screens. On mobile (2/3 of views) and on narrow desktop screens, the photos are moved below the table and displayed as a single column. Readers have to scroll past this column for ages before they can get to the "See also" section. On wide screens, the photos are too far away from the table.
  • Because of the Veganism sidebar, the table only starts after tons of white space. MOS:LEAD also advises against sidebars in the lead (for other reasons).

I thus removed both, but Randy Kryn reverted my edit. This is how the page currently looks like on different screens:

  •  
    narrow desktop
  •  
    medium wide desktop
  •  
    wide desktop
  •  
    extra wide desktop

This was my proposal:

 
proposal without veganism sidebar and photo gallery

@Randy Kryn do you see the issue?
@Others what do you think is an appropriate layout for this page? Betty Logan MaynardClark valereee Throughthemind If you really want to keep the photos, we could incorporate them into a table column so that they are displayed next to the actual person. ‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 13:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I have checked the page on a display 1024 pixels wide and it works fine at that resolution. That is the minimum resolution supported on Wikipedia per WP:RESOL. I agree that the gap of whitespace at the top caused by the sidebar is ugly, and the sidebar is largely redundant given the vegetarianism and veganism navbox at the bottom of the page. I don't think it would be detrimental to the article if it were removed.
I think Randy reverted you because he regarded the images as an asset to the article. I do agree with that view to an extent. It is easy to see how diverse the vegan demographic is via quick scroll through the images, a sense that you don't really get from a really large list. There are other solutions available, such as constructing a gallery at the bottom of the page after the main table. I think incorporating the images into the table would be self-defeating because it would bloat the table too much; in fact they were in the table at one stage and we took them out because you only got 3–4 entries to a screen, making the list scroll intensive. It would take up exactly the same amount of space anyway, so if you are going to have a column of photos it would be better to keep have them outside of the table. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
The images and layout seem fine on my screen, which is on the narrow side because I view the extremely small Wikipedia default size at 175%. The images being kept along the side seems essential to me, much easier to view some of the more famous vegans with an image scroll. Maybe just make the chart even smaller would fix the problem, even a little bit more (please test it out). And the obvious reply to the white space created by an element of the lead sidebar is...let's write some more and fill it up with a couple new paragraphs. I'll help with that at some point soon, and it'll be interesting to see what we all can fill up that white space with. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
A related question, as I think the image stack should be almost as long as the chart, and would suggest adding images of historical figures. On my screen the image stack ends at Nominjin, same for everyone or are there differences? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be reasonable to extend the gallery, although some care needs to be taken to make it representative of the world i.e. a roughly even split between men and women, more non-Western representation, and more representation from non-entertainment professions. People tend to add photos of their favorite American singer/actor, which ends up making veganism look like some trendy Hollywood fad. For example, the Indians and Chinese account for a third of the global population and yet are there is only one Indian in the gallery (despite India being the most vegetarian country on the planet) and no Chinese; conversely, of the ~50 images in the gallery around 30–40 of them are American/Canadian/British/Irish/Australian i.e. very Anglosphere oriented. There are many people on the list not from those countries so we should perhaps work our way through the list to see if any of them have suitable images we can use, giving preference to people not in entertainment. Betty Logan (talk) 03:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright then keep the table as is but let us remove the sidebar. Randy Kryn, if you add more text, the lead is no longer a concise overview of the article's topic as intended by MOS:LEAD. The sidebar is not critical enough to justify the whitespace, and it could even be argued to be a case of MOS:OVERLINK. Readers that want to read up on veganism can just click on the subjects in the table, or on the link veganism and follow further links there.‎⠀Trimton⠀‎‎ 20:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A couple more sentences could be added and still be concise, and those could contain a link or two apiece from the sidebar topics. The sidebar seems important on most of its pages, so to be fair to removing the template several more of its major links could be worked into a slightly expanded lead. Betty Logan, an interesting analysis, thanks. You seem to have a good feel for the needed additions. I'd weigh in on the side of keeping, or even adding to, the images of the well-known individuals. Readers would understand the population distribution and relative popularity of vegans by seeing people that they recognize. How many further images would fit the length of the chart? Randy Kryn (talk) 01:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I estimate 20 give or take. Betty Logan (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Coding rules

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

So the list contains only current vegans and dead people who were vegan until death? The current lead states "All the people on this list reportedly for some time during their lives practised a vegan diet". This would, contrarily, include alive former vegans. What's the correct description / coding rule for this list? Tagging Psychologist Guy Betty Logan --Trimton (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that we need good reliable sources for them being vegan and they have to be vegan for a notable period of time, not just a few days, weeks or months. Years or decades is what we are after. Former vegans should be excluded. I also think we should archive these lists above in boxes that are on this talk-page. I don't find them helpful, they just clog up this talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. At first I thought a year is too much. But the criterion is "having been vegan for a year", not having been confirmed as vegan a year ago. I added those coding rules to the article and added a "seek consensus before changing" tag. Trimton (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The basic rule of thumb is that if someone confirms they are vegan (or are reported to be vegan by a high quality source) then they remain on the list until there is explicit confirmation they are no longer vegan. We only have a snapshot of their diet at some point in time so we can't guarantee the list reflects their current dietary choice. If a member of the list is confirmed to be no longer vegan they are added to the list of former vegans at the top of this talk page. The reason we maintain a list here is because sometimes former vegans are re-added to the article on the basis of outdated sources. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
agree that the list is useful, should maybe not be at the top of the talk page. Trimton (talk) 03:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Trimton: I have had to partially revert your edit because you broke the gallery code and introduced a mass of whitespace at the article: [7]. Did you not notice this? Anyway I have been able to fix the issue. I have also slightly changed your wording. Insisting on a mandatory time limit of one year is not possible to enforce. I would support excluding somebody who turned vegan last week, but would we really exclude somebody who has been vegan for 11 months? Also, what do we do in cases where it is not known how long somebody has been vegan? We could end up excluding people people who have been vegan for 6 months but admitting people who have been vegan for 6 days on the basis of a technicality. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I am so sorry about the formatting!!! No, I never noticed. I edited it on the phone and it looked unchanged (I'm on the phone most of the time. I shall change that). I'm not sure I follow; how would the 1-year rule include someone who was vegan for 6 days? And I think most news articles include the duration ("Billie Eilish has been vegan for 7 years" or whatever). I'd also allow if several reliable sources spread over 1 year confirm a person's veganism. If it's unclear, the person could go to our talk page list for tracking. Agreed, 11 months vs 12 months is not a big difference. But that's a bit like saying " how many grains is a heap of sand 10 grains? If so, why aren't 9 grains? If 9 are a heap, why not 8? etc." you have to make a border somewhere, even though its arbitrary. I'm fine with 6 months, but not less. we're WP:NOTNEWS in that we shouldn't be tracking the vegan status of every recent vegan. There are so many now that we wouldn't be able to anyhow. By waiting 6 months, we make our job easier, too; "recidivism" becomes less likely, and thus having to remove the entry. Trimton (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Betty Logan, I think as long as a person has been recorded as being vegan at some point, they should be in the list –and then removed when they have been confirmed to no longer be vegan. I'm not in favor of a 6-month rule or any sort of triage period before adding people to the list, as this is kind of arbitrary. Additionally, perhaps we could have a separate section in this list for ex-vegans? ~★ nmaia d 21:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point, now I'm torn between no limit and 6 months. I think a list of ex-vegans would get too big with high recedivism rates as per Faunalytics? What would you think of an optional starting date and/or Template:Time_ago column? e.g. "Billie Eilish | 2014 (10 years)" Trimton (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Instead of "Mistaken", shouldn't it read "Never were"? As an aside, the Faunalytics study doesn't refer to vegans. It's been very widely misrepresented (and critiqued about it). Refer to the EPIC-Oxford study that found the opposite, 85% of vegans were still vegan after 20 years. --Danny Mamby (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Add "date of birth" to the table

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I wanted to sort the list by date of birth but the feature isn't avaiable. 9RbN (talk) 10:54, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

9RbN, I was going to propose this exact same thing AdrianHObradors (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
9RbN, I went ahead and added the field :)
Now only thing left is to populate it... AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Alright, so I first I was going to add only the year, but decided to add it with a template instead. Some problems though.
  • We should mark somehow the people that has already died. (With a cross maybe by their name)
  • There are so many templates for dates of birth.
  • {{Birth date}}: (1990-01-15)January 15, 1990
  • {{Birth date and age}}: (1990-01-15) January 15, 1990 (age 34)
  • {{Birth-date}}: 1990-01-15 (1990-01-15) or 1990 (1990)
  • {{Birth-date and age}}: 1990-01-15 (1990-01-15) (age 34) or 1990 (1990) (age 34)
  • {{Birth year and age}}: January 1990 (age 34) or 1990 (age 33–34)
  • {{Death year and age}}: 2025 (aged 34–35)
So I am not sure which ones should we use.
Edit: I have added how they look. I think we should go with {{Birth year and age}}, with either only the year or the year and the month. If person is deceased, {{Birth-date}} - {{Death year and age}} AdrianHObradors (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This strikes me as a particularly bad idea. Per WP:DOB Wikipedia recognises that identity theft is a serious concern, should only ever include a DOB for a living person if it is "widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public", and states that "If a subject complains about our inclusion of their date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year, provided that there is a reliable source for it". And that is in a biography itself. Adding dates of birth to the list seems entirely redundant, and an invitation to include invalid or unsourced information, contrary to policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I oppose adding the birth date too. It is completely tangential to the topic of the article. It would make more sense to add the date that somebody became vegan, and even then I don't think it is that important. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, what about adding the birthdates of the people that already have their birthdate on their article? Or, to even be more careful, we can comply with what is indicated at WP:DOB and list just the year AdrianHObradors (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
A Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source. At absolute minimum, you'd have to actually find a reliable source for the DoB, and cite it directly. And even that doesn't really address the privacy concerns. Just the year would perhaps be acceptable, but why include it? Can you point to similar lists that include a date of birth? Or provide an explanation as to why this is of any particular significance for a list of vegans, as opposed to any other subject? AndyTheGrump (talk)
Hi AndyTheGrump, sure. I went to Category:Lists of people by ideology, clicked the first five categories, and all of them except the one about fictional anarchists have the year they were born (or born and death). And the reason to add it is because being able to sort by date can give you a sort of "history of veganism", letting you know how people became vegan through ages.AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
The dates of birth in an obviously incomplete list tell you next to nothing about how people became vegan. Or when they became vegan for that matter. as for Category:Lists of people by ideology, I'm not sure that arbitrary rag-bag collection of disparate topics tells us much at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, I chose that group because "list of vegans" is part of it. And one of the five lists I mentioned is List of animal rights advocates, which is very closely related, so it isn't that arbitrary. Of course the list is incomplete, and will probably be incomplete, but I don't see how that can be a factor. Edit: And that "rag-bag collection of disparate topics" was just an example. I went to Category:Lists of people, and I am having more trouble finding lists that don't list the birthdate than the opposite. I seriously feel a bit ridiculous having to argue this, for me is so obvious that it is important information to know when a person you are talking about is from. It is more arbitrary to list them in alphabetical order than by date of birth. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting info?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

For maneka gandhi, shes listed here as a vegan, but on her own wikipedia page it says shes not a vegan 103.208.71.143 (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Both claims appear sourced, but I am unable to check either source to see what they actually say. Either one of the sources is wrong (or misrepresented), or perhaps Gandhi has changed her status at some point. Either way, we need further information to clarify her vegan status. Betty Logan (talk) 12:48, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Rossman

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I believe Bubby Rossman belongs on this list, as reflected in his article and the sources there. 2603:7000:2143:8500:655F:127C:AAB4:6837 (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

2603:7000:2143:8500:655F:127C:AAB4:6837, I have added Rossman to the list AdrianHObradors (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

David Haye

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

David Haye is not a vegan, there are photographs of him eating chicken wings [8], however the newspaper that published the photographs of Haye is The Sun which is not considered RS. Not sure what to do here because we have good photographic evidence he is not vegan but the source is not reliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that while The Sun is not reliable for adding people to the list, the threshold is lower for removing them and adding them to the talk page. There is a clearly doubt over his status. Perhaps move him to the disputed list for now? I have to ask, are you sure they are chicken wings and not some vegan substitute? Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not convinced that many vegan sportspeople really exist. We can go through the list but most of these people cheat. A Diaz brother was recently removed, the Diaz brothers eat fish and eggs. It's obvious David Haye was never vegan. I have looked at the photograph it does depict a bone with chicken on both ends. I do not believe it is any substitute (I am not aware of any substitute that looks like that), the article says the chicken wings were part of a dinner platter costing £21 at London’s Blake­more Hyde Park Hotel. I have no reason to doubt the story, it's just a shame the The Sun newspaper is unreliable as a source on here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Olivia Wilde

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Olivia Wilde is a not a vegan, nor a pescatarian. Her diet as of 2023 is listed here [9] which includes chicken, eggs, salmon, turkey and Greek yoghurt. She should be removed from the list. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your source seems like an AI generated text with made-up facts. Olivia Wilde was non-vegan during her pregancies and after her divorce, but she is probably a vegan again now. RabbitFromMars (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
You don't just switch on and off being a vegan. You have no evidence she is a vegan, "probably" is not evidence. She is not a vegan, the website I linked femalefitnessmagazine is not AI generated. Her diet includes chicken, salmon and turkey. Here is a another source from last year describing Olivia Wilde's salmon recipe "Wilde's recipe was a salad with roasted salmon, courgette, potatoes, and a homemade dressing consisting of red wine vinegar, Dijon mustard, honey, salt, garlic, and olive oil." [10]. Please do not post misinformation on here. It's obvious she is not vegan and is a massive meat eater. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:44, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the new information. I still believe your former source was rather obviously from a website consisting of AI articles. How do you come to the conclusion that she is a 'massive meat eater'? PS: Please be more polite. RabbitFromMars (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
You can find photographs of her eating eggs and there is a video of her cooking salmon. She eats salmon therefore she is a meat-eater. She has never been vegan. We need to keep the lists as accurate as possible, therefore she has been removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Then please link these findings here on the talk page and don't use the dubious AI site as the only source. - I see you already added two links. Feel free to list all your proof. Thank you. RabbitFromMars (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Traslate the page to Spanish

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Interest to traslate the page to Spanish language? Interés en traducir la página al idioma Español?... Dominga009 (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

That would be a great thing in my opinion. But best ask in the Spanish Wikipedia before if such a list is welcome. There have been (unsuccessful) nominations for deletion in the English and German Wikipedia for these lists of vegans. RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Barry White

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is this curious rumour in the world that Barry White was a vegan or vegetarian (Examples: [11], [12]). I don't know when this started and where it comes from. In a video on his health problems and death, there was no mention of vegetarianism at all. And it was stated that in 1998, he ate plenty of chicken when working on his autobiography with his co-author. [13]. Judging from this, it's pretty safe to say White was not vegan at the end of his life. RabbitFromMars (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Barry White is listed as a vegan in an academic book, "Critical Animal Studies: Thinking the Unthinkable", p. 238, the same page lists many other celebrities some of which are not vegan. I believe there are many such unreliable lists. The authors do not do their homework. I agree Barry White was never vegan. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Kat Von D

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Above Kat Von D is now cited as a former vegan, however, her Wikipedia article says she is still a vegan. The sources listed for claiming she is not vegan are some vegan reddit boards and the evidence consists of someone claiming they know someone that knows Kat Von D and she eats meat all the time. This is not good evidence, it is third hand information and nothing more than hearsay on a Reddit board. If someone is not vegan we need a reliable source. Articles and interviews are very useful, but a Reddit post by an anonymous user is not good evidence.

This post is more interesting [14] because it shows a lamb dinner menu. As above with The Sun newspaper obviously Reddit is not a reliable source, so what can be done here. Based on the photographic evidence it is true that Kat Von D is not vegan because she is eating lamb. However we are running into the issue here of citing unreliable sources. Unfortunately Kat Von D's Wikipedia article still says she is vegan as do many reliable source on the internet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:30, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

'She took the V off her Instagram profile, no longer shares her thoughts and fundraisers for veganism.' 'Her ig bio used to say, "Vegan as F**k" for years.' If she took the V and "Vegan as F**k' out of her Instagram bio that would be pretty good first hand information. It might not be a respectable print source. But I'd rather judge by such obvious details and have correct information than leave her in until she gives an interview that confirms she quit veganism. You were not so strict yourself regarding Olivia Wilde some days ago. RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
There are photographs of Olivia Wilde eating eggs and interviews where she has admitted to cooking salmon recipes, not only do we have RS for her not being vegan, there is also photographic evidence. There is strong evidence for her not being vegan, the only evidence that exists for Kat Von D are Reddit posts. I have not seen any photographs of her eating meat, just a menu recipe on an unreliable website, nor any articles reporting that. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources. We cannot do our own personal research here, we have to rely on RS. Just because someone may have changed their Instagram account details does not count as good evidence. I believe what you are saying is correct but there are no reliable sources to back it up. This is a very difficult subject when sources are lacking. The best option here is to go with RS and not do personal research. I believe most of the people on the list are not vegan, most of them cheat but we need good sourcing. I believe we should only remove people from the list if we have good sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
'There are photographs of Olivia Wilde eating eggs and interviews where she has admitted to cooking salmon recipes'. I have not seen those yet, you didn't link them. RabbitFromMars (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Olivia Wilde cooked a salmon recipe live in 2020 for the Food Network's Questlove's Potluck, there are photographs of her in her Kitchen cooking the salmon [15] "Among them was Ms. Olivia Wilde herself, who shared her recipe for Salmon Salad with Zucchini and Potatoes". You can see the giant piece of salmon next to her on the right (a clip of the video can be found here [16], check around 20 seconds). The video used to be on YouTube but it has been removed. She later invented a salmon salad recipe that went viral on TikTok. There is also a photograph of her cooking eggs [17]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_8&oldid=1185483842"