Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed addition of section Fictional vegetarians

Many people-related lists have a section called 'fictional whatsoevers', and I think it's good to have one here too. Should the rules for including them be 'any character with an article' or 'any character whose book has an article'? Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 12:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll cast a vote for relegating such a list to characters who have their own articles. This seems consistent with the rules for non-fictional people included in the list, who must have their own articles. Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with that, although as Colin says the notability criteria should follow that of living people. Since they are fictional they should not go in the national divisions either, there should be a separate section called "Fiction" which I think should be placed at the bottom of the list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

p.s. I've slightly altered the intro to clarify that anyone who has been vegetarian at some point in their life is eligible for the list because I was getting tired of the Nazi moaning about Einstein only been vegetarian in his final year. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The postscript made me laugh! (No need to moan about it, Nazis, vegetarian is not yet a really postitive term.) Anyway, no, 'fiction' won't seem to work. 'Fictional character' or simply 'Fictional' will work better? Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 01:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually mind, just as long its clear they aren't real people. Since the list is structured by where people come from, maybe "Works of fiction" would be a good section name. Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

'Fictional characters' sounds fine to me. I've never seen anyone open a section called 'Works of fiction' when it comes to lists of people. :) Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse BACK FROM EXAMS 06:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• OK, our first addition is Frankenstein's monster, using the same ref as Mary Shelley:
  • Frankenstein's monster (we'll give MAry Shelly's ref a ref name and use it here).

Any others? No point adding it yet if we don't get a few more. :) Kayau Odyssey HUCK FINN to the lighthouse 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.happycow.net/famous/supermanclark_kent/ Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

http://vegetarianstar.com/2009/05/22/spock-star-treks-vulcan-vegan-questions-his-flesh-eating-ways/ Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

*[[Frankenstein's monster]] <ref name="ivums"/>
*[[Superman]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.happycow.net/famous/supermanclark_kent/|title=Superman/Clark Kent|publisher=Happycow|language=English|accessdate=13 February 2010}}</ref>
Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't say your second one was particularly reliable, since it's more or less a gossip site. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Being a gossip site doesn't preclude something from being a reliable source - many reliable sources such as newspapers have celebrity news and gossip sections, which much of our information comes from incidentally. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Although I personally am not too happy with the Fictional list (perhaps it needs its own page, or maybe some reference to nationality), I have listed these in alphabetical order--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I do wonder whether I should have added that, if Superman is a veggie, surely Clark Kent would be one too?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

What? Open new section for Tibet?!?

You don't have to open a section under China for Tibet. Otherwise we'd also have one for Taiwan and Hong Kong. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 03:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancy a peer review?

For once, all issues and disputes are solved and there are no new ones. I don't know whether dynamic, bulleted, stand-alone lists can be FL (last time there was no answer), so I think a peer review will do. After all, this article has probably more citations than most FAs, though I don't know much about FLs. Does everyone agree to put this under a peer review? Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

If there are no objections I'll nominate it. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 01:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! Colinclarksmith (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you want to finish the color/code boxes throughout the list before you submit it? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

This chap has a good point, actually. Colinclarksmith (talk) 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Pip-pip. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good point, really. But then again, it will probably never be done. There are some wikilinks to other language 'pedias that I don't speak. Kayau Voting IS evil 04:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

To prepare for PR more, here are some suggestions from the automatic peer review:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]1
• This article has no or few images. Please see if there are any free use images that fall under the Wikipedia:Image use policy and fit under one of the Wikipedia:Image copyright tags that can be uploaded. To upload images on Wikipedia, go to Special:Upload; to upload non-fair use images on the Wikimedia Commons, go to commons:special:upload.[?]
• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]</ref>.,</ref>,,
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Some irrelevant ones have been crossed out. I think we should discuss the rest of the matters into detail. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone's done all the hard work, and (I've been such a fool) I tried it in my userspace! Anyway, I'll nominate it for a PR right now. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

New results:

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]1
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
• This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
• The script has spotted the following contractions: can't, don't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

Kayau Voting IS evil 13:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The Dutch vegetarians... again

Now that we have coloured boxes for the veggies, can we delete their jobs when we add the boxes? Kayau Voting IS evil 03:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, if no-one opposes I'll just take the liberty of doing it. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The structure should be the same for every nationality. The occupations and dates of birth should come out. Betty Logan (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, in that case I think we'll be better off converting the whole thing into a wikitable rather than use coloured boxes. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed one

I recently found this one:

• Sean Brennan <ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.londonaftermidnight.com}}</ref>

The ref doesn't look very promising. Anyone got another? Kayau Voting IS evil 04:08, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

List of vegans

I've just annihilated List of Dutch vegetarians. They've all been copied over here since I don't see the point of having two identical lists that have to be maintained. That list doesn't do anything that this one doesn't do. I don't think we need two separate lists of vegans either. So the question is, do we copy all our vegans other there and drop them from this list, or do we copy the vegan list over here into our vegan section and just have the one list? It might be easier to maintain if we have just the one list, but even though vegans are vegetarians people may think it's better to have a hard split between the two types. My preference is to have two distinct lists since we're making the distinction anyway by having two columns, and maybe structure List of vegans so it's like this list. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I favor the the merge of the List of Dutch vegetarians article into this article, but am against merging the List of vegans in a way that would eliminate the latter (I stated my point at Talk:List of vegans.) If you want to eliminate the redundancy, which is quite understandable, I vote for moving the List of vegans sub-section in the List of vegetarians article over to the actual List of vegans article, with a prominent redirect on the List of vegetarians. The completely color-coded List of vegetarians looks excellent, by the way, and I hope the List of vegans gets a similar makeover sometime soon!  : ) Colinclarksmith (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've started shifting these across now. It looks like the list of vegans is safe since the majority want to keep the article so we may as well get on with it. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Kalpen Modi

Kal Penn also is vegetarian (from U.S). Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 21:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As long as you have a ref, feel free to add it yourself. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I found a source, but he is an actor and a politican, which could be? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You go with what they're most notable for, which would be acting in this case. Betty Logan (talk) 07:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Page numbers

All three reviewers at the peer review have been puzzled by the fact that we put page numbers after the names. Should we stop using the - um, it's called the rp system, right? Kayau Voting IS evil 01:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's bad form to list a book lots of times in the References section, you should only list it once. If the information is on different pages then we need to include the page numbers. We basically have two choices, we can either use the Rp system or the shortened footnote system. If we use the shortened footnote system we end up with a couple of hundred footnotes for a couple of dozen references, and then we still need a separate bibilography section to list each book. The Rp system is an effective way of referencing multiple pages of the same book so I don't know why the reviewers are puzzled by it - they are perhaps unfamiliar with correct referencing procedures. The references section is already bigger than the article itself, so I don't see the point in using a system that would needlessly increase the references by another couple of hundred entries. Betty Logan (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

They must be unfamiliar with the referencing procedures of giant lists. :) And about the defs - one of the reviewers said it might be good to include a definition. By the way, he also said that we have a reliability problem with the sources. That's shouldn't be difficult to solve, but... Kayau Voting IS evil 12:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We only have a choice of two referencing systems. I have a preference for the Rp system because it's much shorter, but have no fundamental objection to the footnote/bibliography system if that is what people would prefer. Maybe the best way to resolve that issue would be to ask someone who is experienced in referencing. Is there a MOS page for this kind of thing? As for the definitions, these lists are really an extension of the vegetarian and veganism articles, so it's probably best leaving the definitions to those articles. Veganism extends to a whole lifestyle, so is much harder to define than vegetarianism - although veganism won't be a problem for this article for much longer though. As for the references themselves, the reference styles need to be standardised using the cite web/news/book templates ideally. As for reliability, I'm inclined to give topical websites the benefit of the doubt, but if you want the list to become a featured list then that's a luxury we can't afford anymore. Each reference has to demonstrably be shown to have a fact verification policy in place, or say where they got their information.

First we need some advice about which citation system to use - Rp or footnote/bibliography. After that is sorted, each reference needs to be standardised using the citation templates. After that we can determine which sources are reliable sources or not, and replace those that aren't or remove the person.Betty Logan (talk) 14:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Shall I RfC on this, or just put it up on the help desk? Kayau Voting IS evil 02:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, should you need any space for drafting, feel free to use my sandbox reserved for this use. Kayau Voting IS evil 02:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC is for disputes really, and doesn't necessarily get us an expert on referencing. Betty Logan (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Responding to request from Help Desk. Per Wikipedia:Citing sources, There are four reference styles:

• Standard footnotes— you can add page numbers only by repeating each cite with included page number in the <ref>...</ref> tags or by using {{rp}}
• Shortened footnotes— (I think this is what is meant by footnote/bibliography), the page number is in a separate list of shortened references
• Parenthetical referencing (Harvard)— that puts the page number inline as well
• Embedded citations— not recommended

If you desire to change the reference style, then you need to gain consensus on the changes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Gadget850, we'll use the {{mem}} template, right? So, I've set up a new section at User:Kayau/List of vegetarians. We can do some drafts there. We will first convert it to the mem format, then also make sure the reference is formatted properly. After every country we finish we can put it on the main page. Soon it will all be fixed, and FL here we come! :) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've done the first one there. Looks OK. Kayau Voting IS evil 14:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

[outdent] I'm skeptical that there is any such thing as "an expert on [Wikipedia] referencing"; various editors have differing preferences, or we would not have so many different reference styles. It's not a problem as long as we are consistent within each article. These various citation styles are in use here for various reasons, some of them preferential, some practical. Template:Rp exists for a practical reason. It is not useful on all pages, but is certainly useful on pages like this one as well as glossaries and other lists that cite the same source over and over again. There's really no point at all in creating long-winded, editor-time-wasting and reader-annoying redundant source citations at the bottom of the article (which is what happens in most referencing styles, including the "shortened" one) in this sort of article. The shortened footnote style is useful in some articles, but the very fact that it isn't in articles like this is why {{Rp}} was created in the first place. I'm not sure why Gadget80 ignores {{Rp}}-style referencing, since it has been used here for several years now, and is clearly established among the five, not four, WP reference styles. {{Rp}} is used in nearly 3,000 articles now, including many major ones (just look at the first page of Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Rp). Good and Featured Article candidacy should not raise {{Rp}} as any kind of issue when it is used properly, as it appears to be here, and article reviewers should know better. PS: Various articles that aren't even lists (see Ayurveda#Notes for an example) illustrate why {{Rp}} is often a better idea that rambling streams of redundant citations in "Notes" and "References" sections. {{Rp}} can also be used pretty seamlessly with our most common citation style when it is needed (see William A. Spinks for example). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 02:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Betty Logan says Shortened footnotes a couple of hundred footnotes for a couple of dozen references, but in fact it can be used like Parenthetical referencing - the loc and p parameters of Template:Sfn. For a example in an article, Brachiopod. --Philcha (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to give us your opinions, chaps. SmcCandlish points out that the RP system isn't an obstacle to FL status should the list reach a stage when it can be considered, which is useful to know. It basically comes down to individual preference then. I prefer the Rp system but if the majority of the editors on the article would prefer to use the more familiar shortened footnote system then I'm happy to go along with that. I'm a bit confused by Philcha's comments though, because as far as I can see the Sfn template would still generate a footnote for each page reference. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, I apparently misunderstood Gadget80 as opposing use of {{Rp}}, but the editor actually says it is used properly, in the peer review of this article. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal regarding the further development of this list

The following is my proposal of the further development of this list. Should there be any objections, or corrections, feel free to alter the proposal or comment below. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Vegans

1. Vegans shall be removed from this list and become part of the List of vegans instead.
2. The lead shall be altered as our list no longer encompasses the vegan diet. We should state that only LACTO-OVO vegetarians are included here, UNLESS details of the diet of that particular person is unknown, but known to be vegetarian.

Formatting

1. This list shall use the {{mem}} format rather than the coloured boxes, as readers may find the boxes confusing.

Notability

1. The MOST NOTABLE things the person is for shall be included in the 'notability' column.
2. Remarks about that person's vegetarianism shall be included as well.

References

1. All references whose reliability is questioned or disputed shall be replaced by another one.
2. All dead links shall be fixed, either with the wayback machine or another ref.
3. All references shall utilise citation templates.

Removal

1. If a new BLP addition does not have a reference, remove the addition on sight. Contact the person who added it, as he may have a source.
2. If other unreferenced additions are added, keep for, say, 1 week, then remove.

Kayau Voting IS evil 12:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC) POSTSCRIPT: Looks like we already have enough comments. Should there be no opposition I'll close the PR. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

I've already started transferring the vegans over. In the case where the person is already on the list I've just tranferred our references over because in some cases our are stronger.

As for the references, if reliability is challenged, they should be discussed on here first rather rather than just replaced. If someone challenges reliability it doesn't necessarily mean the source is unreliable so consensus should be used to determine the reliability of sources. I don't oppose any of the other suggestions. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The can be both replaced and placed here for discussion. If it is replaced by a non-controversial reliable source, then what will be the problem? And then if the result of the discussion here is 'reliable', then can't we keep both? That means more refs. ;) Kayau Voting IS evil 12:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with someone adding further references, but many of the references come from the same sites - IVU, peta, HappyCow etc. If a source is removed because of a reliability issue it could have consequences for other sources so it needs to be discussed first. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, I agree with you. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent IP removal of Franz Kafka

  Franz Kafka

Two similar IPs, which have done the same action with the same edit summary, have removed this entry from the Austria section. In order not to violate 3RR, I think we should take this off the list, contact the person who removed it, and let him discuss here why he doesn't want Kafka in the list. The only problem is, how do we contact him when he's using multiple IPs? We can't be sure which computer he'll be using next. Kayau Voting IS evil 01:30, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

We can't go removing names every time someone disagrees with a person on the list. If he thinks the sources aren't reliable the onus is on him to come here and explain why. If other editors are convinced by his reasons then we either replace the references or remove him from the list, depending on what the consensus is. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

But we don't want this to evolve to an edit war. OK, I'll see if he removes Kafka once more. If he does, off the list he goes, and we'll contact him using both talk pages. Is that alright with you? Kayau Voting IS evil 03:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't come off the list unless there is a clear consensus that the references don't support him. That's not how Wikipedia works. If he keeps removing him without trying to obtain a consensus then the page will be semi-protected so he can't do it, and if necessary appropriate action will be taken against him.Betty Logan (talk) 10:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Fine... but I still don't want it to become 3RR. Vandalism does not count for 3RR, but removal probably does. Kayau Voting IS evil 10:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit button/Firefox issues

For some reason in Firefox the "edit" buttons for the sections are pushed to the bottom of the article. I assume this is a Firefox bug since it is fine in Internet Explorer, so if you need to edit a section it is probably best to use that browser. Betty Logan (talk) 11:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a firefox bug, but a chrome one as well. Anyway I've fixed it so you can safely use firefox to edit now. Kayau Voting IS evil 05:22, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've exchanged it for the Stack template though because the images in Firefox were going down the center of the page because of the contents table. I had to leave the images in Canada too or it messed up in Internet Explorer. Betty Logan (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Rodman, Plato and Wagner

The evidence that Dennis Rodman is a vegetarian is circumstantial. I searched in books and in the internet but I found nothing to support the claim that he was a vegetarian. Many vegetarians deduce he was a vegetarian because he made an anti-fur ad, but that doesn’t mean he is a vegetarian. The article that says he is a vegetarian also says Emerson was a vegetarian (and he wasn’t). So I suggest his picture to be substituted by a picture of a verified vegetarian (like Plutarch, Apollonius of Tyana, John Kellog, Isaac Bashevis Singer, Dick Gregory, or Jonathan Safran Foer). The same goes to Plato: “Ancient sources sometimes identify Plato as a vegetarian, but none of these were his contemporaries, and it is not clear whether their authors knew for a fact that he ate no meat, or were making an assumption based on the vegetarian passages in The Republic and the Laws and the obvious Pythagorean influence in Plato’s philosophy.” (Phelps, The Longest Struggle, p. 33). Wagner supported vegetarianism but some authors claim he did not give up meat himself (Spencer, Vegetarianism, p. 264). Leonidas Metello (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC).

The Rodman claim seems to be pretty ropey - the reference says his photo formed part of a vegetarian art show, so there is no actual claim of vegetarianism there so I've removed his entry and replaced his photo with Dick Gregory. As for the Plato and Wagner cases, I suggest adding the further references and changing their status to "disputed". If someone is disputed their image should ideally be exchanged, but preferably replaced with an image of someone of someone from the same section so the images stay in order and roughly parallel to the section in which they appear. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

For Germany I suggest Gustav Struve. For Greece Apollonius of Tyana, Empedocles, Plotinus, Plutarch, Porphyry or Pythagoras. Leonidas Metello (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

We've made the top 1000 longest articles on Wikipedia: [1] (currently #996) Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're off again. Getting listed there is not a good thing at all, because it means people might come and trim it! Kayau Voting IS evil 12:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article move

Isn't this article better named as List of notable vegetarians or something more sensible? List of vegetarians is non-inclusive of a sizeable chunk of the world population which is vegetarian.

Regards Swaroop (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think this move is unnecessary. It works either way, because stand-alones are governed by the WP:STAND guideline. Saying that this is a list of notable vegetarians is like saying that all the items sold at the greengrocer's are edible. By the way, this is not an article but a list. Kayau Voting IS evil 06:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, just think whether the previous name makes sense or not. List of vegetarians is misleading isn't it? To a third person reading this article, it conveys a message that there are only a small number of vegetarians in the world, which is not correct. Swaroop (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with you here. There are lots of lists on WP that are like this. Say, for example, List of atheists, List of former Protestants, List of Chinese inventions, etc. The latter is actually an FL. They do not include the word 'notable', 'significant', etc, nor imply that there are only a small number of atheists, former Protestants, or Chinese inventions. Kayau Voting IS evil 07:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Superman pic

The file description page clearly states that it is non-free, and besides, it looks ugly. Some picture of the characters in The Journey to the West would be great as it would contain a group of vegetarians rather than a single one. Thoughts? Kayau Voting IS evil 13:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Superman is a work of fiction so none of the pictures are going to be "free" because his look is copyrighted. If the copyright licence is not in order then the image would be deleted from Wikipedia as a copyright vio so it's not an issue for this article - if it's on Wikipedia we can use it, if we can't then no-one on Wikipedia can and it would be deleted. I restored the image because it's better than just having a space, but if you don't like the picture then just exchange it for another, I don't have a problem with that. I have no objection to a Journey to the West character provided it is someone who is named in the Fictional section, because the images should show people or characters that are listed. Betty Logan (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Logan, please read fair use. As the Superman picture can be replaced by a lot of other people (we've got loads on our list), it does not qualify for fair use. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of fair use, but a copyright licence doesn't apply to an article on Wikipedia, it applies to Wikipedia. If something qualifies under fair use then it can be used on Wikipedia, if it doesn't then it can't. If you think the image is a copyright vio then you should raise your concerns on the image page, because if the fair use argument doesn't hold it has to be removed from Wiipedia. If you don't want to use the image then replace it with something, but don't just remove it and leave a blank space! Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I kindly advise you do read the file description.

Fair use rationale for Superman

This image, Superman.jpg, is being linked here; though the picture is subject to copyright I (Hiding Talk) feel it is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:

1. No free alternative can exist given the likeness of the character Superman is a trademark and thus protected;
2. It is a low resolution copy of a comic book cover;
3. The image was released to the media to promote the issue in question, issue 204 of Superman;
4. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to sell the comic book in any way;
5. Copies could not be used to make illegal copies of the comic book cover art on another comic book;
6. The image is significant; it was created by a notable comic book artist, Jim Lee. It is the cover to the top selling comic book of 2004[2]; it is the first issue of a lauded[3] run on the book by a notable writer, Brian Azzarello and artist, Jim Lee; and it identifies the character depicted, Superman in an iconic manner, with the copyright owner using the image for posters[4] and promotional work.

Attribution: File:Superman.jpg

I don't believe our list fits criterion 1. Kayau Voting IS evil 15:30, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright law doesn't apply to articles on Wikipedia, it applies to Wikipedia. Either Wikipedia is hosting it legally, in which case it is free to use in their articles or it isn't, in which case it shouldn't be used in articles at all. By your logic no-one would be able to use fair use images because you don't have to illustrate your articles! A free alternative to the image is to not use the image, but fair use law dictates that in the case where you wish to use an image of Superman, where an alternative free image of Superman doesn't exist then you can use a copyrighted one under fair use. However, you could easily solve this by simply replacing the image. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

By your logic, Miss Logan, if you're writing a book on different types of software, you can use the logo of one of those software and use it to decorate your book on every single page. No, we can't. But since you now have a public domain image I won't complain. However, I still advise you to re-read different pages related to fair use and see if our list justifies a fair use rationale. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Not my logic, the logic of US copyright law. Fair use prohibits you from profiting from other copyrighted work without permission. Fair use imposes restrictions on usage such that the purpose has to be educational. If Wikipedia started including advertising then all fair use images would have to come off the site. I suggest you acquaint yourself with the fair use aspect of the law itself: [5]. We satisfy clause 1, the list is for educational non-profit purposes. Under clause 2, the work was released in a promotional context implying its reproduction and further usage are not explicitly against the wishes of the copyright owners. It is of reduced resolution satisfying clause 3, and under clause 4 its usage is unlikely to deter people from buying the comic, so rather than coming up with examples that have nothing to do this work, you'll have to explain to me which part of the actual copyright LAW we are violating with it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Miss Logan, please read Wikipedia's own policy as well. WP:FUC:

1. No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. (As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)
2. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.
3. 1. Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 2/spanMinimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.
   2. Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 2/spanMinimal extent of use. An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used (especially where the original could be used for deliberate copyright infringement). This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace.
4. Previous publication. Non-free content must have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia.
5. Content. Non-free content meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic.
6. Media-specific policy. The material meets Wikipedia's media-specific policy. For example, images must meet Wikipedia:Image use policy.
7. One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article.
8. Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
9. Restrictions on location. Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in article namespace, subject to exemptions. (To prevent an image category from displaying thumbnails, add __NOGALLERY__ to it; images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)
10. Image description page. The image or media description page contains the following:
    1. Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder; this is to help determine the material's potential market value. See: Wikipedia:Citing sources#When uploading an image.
    2. A copyright tag that indicates which Wikipedia policy provision is claimed to permit the use. For a list of image copyright tags, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free content.
    3. The name of each article (a link to each article is also recommended) in which fair use is claimed for the item, and a separate, specific fair-use rationale for each use of the item, as explained at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. The rationale is presented in clear, plain language and is relevant to each use.

Attribution: WP:FUI
I don't believe we exactly fit all 10 criteria. Kayau Voting IS evil 12:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines don't define the law, but if using the image in the list doesn't meet the criteria then neither does using it on the Superman article. In both cases they illustrate the same thing, and in both cases they are for educational purposes. It's obviously time for a third opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, Miss Logan, I think you're going a bit too far... there's always the help desk, or project talks, or things like that. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We get an objective opinion and wer stand by that decision because I'm tired of discussing it. The guidelines are there to help us interpret the law, but law is very clear on what constitutes fair use, and you can't break the law on one article and not on the other. If the decision goes against me then fair enough, but I wanted it wrapped up. Betty Logan (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the Free encyclopedia. We have a bias for free content, and we have strict rules restricting the use of non-free content. Simple "fair use" isn't good enough, as we want to be even more restrictive, therefore we came up with WP:NFC, which is quoted above. On Wikipedia, based on our policies, which came down from the foundation, and are supported by community consensus, if an image is "fair use" in one article, that doesn't mean it's a free for all and can be used willy nilly all over the place. We still restrict use, and require each individual use have a specific fair use rationale and be in line with NFCC. Therefore, a fair use image in one article, may not be OK in another article, and this is based on NFCC #3 and #10c, and the clear precedent of policy application. I'm only saying this for your benefit, as our image use policy is complex to those not initiated in its use. That said, I understand that this is probably all moot, because a PD image has been proposed as a replacement. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Andrew. My confusion is based on the fact I can't see a fundamental difference between the fair use rationale for another article and this one - both images are being used to provide a likeness of Superman, and both articles are based on the same site in an education non-profit context. However, there is clear unease at using the image and the public domain one will suffice if its use is permitted. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess this relates to WP:NFLISTS and the last point there. Generally speaking, an image of superman in the superman article makes sense because it is illustrating the topic at hand, namely superman. An image of superman in this article makes less sence because it is not illustrating the general topic "list of vegetarians", but instead is one example in the list (and we posit, generally, that someone could click on a link and be taken to the corresponding page which contains the non-free image) and thus our non-free image use is limited. While they both may be being used to "show what superman looks like", we probably need to know his appearance to understand the topic "Superman", but we do NOT need to know what he looks like to understand the topic of "List of vegetarians". Looking at Superman's likeness, I have no further knowledge of this topic in any regard, so any such images are for decorative purposes (which is fine, as long as we stick to freely licensed content). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

Weaponbb7 (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

The issue is about this image: Image:Superman.jpg. It is currently being used on the Superman article under a fair use rationale i.e. it is a reduced resolution image released for promotional purposes. I would like to use the image on this article, but the other editor disputes the fair use rationale for using it on this list. My problem with that is that if use of the image qualifies under fair use for depicting Superman on the Superman article, why wouldn't it qualify for depicting Superman on this article. The fair use rationale qualifies it for use as a visual depiction of Superman:

• the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate:
  • the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question

The licence qualifies its use to depict Superman, so either the licence is wrong, in which case it should be removed from Wikipedia, or it is legitimate and I can use the image to depict Superman. If the licence is wrong then it should be challenged at the copyright page, on the actual image page. I don't see this as an article issue. The licence as it stands permits its use to depict Superman, so until the licence is altered or the image removed then I don't see why I can't use that image to depict Superman on this article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint by Betty Logan (talk · contribs)

....

The one on the Superman article is the one I want to use, but its fair use rationale is disputed by the other editor. The poor quality one is the replacement image. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Viewpoint Third Opinion by mmyers1976 (talk · contribs)

I'd say the fair use rationale is a bit shaky, and on copyright vio issues, I say, when in doubt, leave it out. I don't think the picture really adds anything to the article - it is poor quality, practically everyone on the planet knows who Superman is so there isn't a pressing need to show a picture of him, and plus, the list of fictional vegetarians isn't all that important to the greater article. I would say, if you just dying to have a picture of superman on the page, why not use the one already on the Superman page? If nothing else, it is a better-quality picture.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little confused on which pic was in question. However, on further consideration, I don't think it matters which picture we are talking about. There really isn't any need to have a picture of Superman on this list. For a non-free image, laws concerning fair use would require a court to take into account the "nature and character of the use", which would include whether or not the use was necessary. In an article on Superman, a graphic depiction of him is pretty important. In a list of vegetarians, most of which are real people, a picture of the fictitious superman is not necessary. Even WP:NFC states, regarding use of nonfree images in lists: "images that are used only to visually identify elements in the article should be used as sparingly as possible" - the use of Superman image in this article fails that. So certainly the nonfree image in the Superman article should not be used. I don't think your replacement image should be used either. Even though that picture may be old, and usually copyrighted images that old lapse into public domain, I believe the general likeness of Superman is at least trademarked by DC, so there is a possibility that use of the image would run afoul of that. It might be okay, but since the image really doesn't add anything to the subject, it's safest just to leave it out entirely.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion by Weaponbb7

....

If there is any question of Fair use in an article where the indiividual is NOT the primary subject of the article then it probably should not be used. Considering the existing source for Superman to be included on the list looks extremely dubious it should not be used Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Response by Betty Logan
I think it's best not to conflate the issues. If you are not happy with the source used for Superman there are plenty of others out there so it's best to stick to the issue. It's also best to stick to the issue of the image in question. The replacement image hasn't been challenged by any of the editors on this page, and as a public domain image Wikipedia policy states it is free to use: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Public_domain. If there is something somewhere that places a restriction on a public domain image, then I'd like to see the relevant guideline because I don't think an FUR is a valid reason for removing a public domain image. If there are legitimate reasons for not using the public domain image, then we should start a new discussion topic to discuss that particular image. This discussion is for discussing the original image, and its fair use rationale. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Public domain image of Superman

I've started this section to discuss the use of this image: Image:Fleishersuperman-big_cropped.jpg. It's best to keep discussion on the two images separate to avoid confusion.

This was the replacement image but it seems there may be objections to its use depite it being in the public domain.

User:Weaponbb7 removed it for not having a "valid FUR". I reverted his edit temporarily because i) there had been no discussion about the propriety of using this image and ii) I'm not convinced that an FUR is a valid reason for removing a public domain image. I've notified him in case he would care to expand on his point

User:Mmyers1976 makes a point that while the cartoon may be public domain the likeness may still be owned by DC.

Does anyone know if either of these points have validity? As it stands the Wikipedia guidelines seem to suggest we can use public domain images, but if not it may be useful to know. The latter point inparticular would probably prohibit illustrating the Fictional vegetarians at all so it would be useful to know in advance. Betty Logan (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I found a source that explains the copyright and trademark issues associated with Superman: http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/03/30/superman-copyright-faq/

Key points: Jerry Siegel's heirs own half of the copyright (DC owns the other half) of everything introduced in Action Comics #1, which would be the name Superman, the secret identity of Clark Kent, his alien origin and coming to earth as a baby, his costume (red cape, S on chest, etc.), his strength, invulnerability, and ability to leap tall buildings in a single bound, as well as Lois Lane. Stuff not introduced in that first comic, but introduced later, such as Lex Luthor, is owned solely by DC.

"DC still owns all of the notable trademarks, specifically the name Superman, the "S" symbol, the visual look of Superman and some other notable features (like the slogan "Up, Up and Away!")." If his likeness is trademarked, it's not in the public domain. It really is just safer not to include any pictures of Superman. It is not necessary for the list. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So are saying that the cartoons themselves are not public domain, because they contain material that is still under copyright? I mean, the definition of public domain is that the material is no longer under any copyright restriction which would seem to imply that the Fleisher Superman cartoons are not actually in the public domain. This public domain image is used on other many articles not just this one: Image:Fleishersuperman-big.png#globalusage. It seems bizarre to just remove it from this list, because surely the same argument would apply to these other articles. If your point is valid - and I'm not saying it isn't because your argument is certianly plausible - then surely this is a licence issue that needs to be addressed? Betty Logan (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The Commons, and by association, Wikipedia, allows public domain, but trademarked content. We have a template Template:Trademarked just for that purpose, see File:Volvo logo.png. Trademark is separate from Copyright. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, it seems that the character of Superman (and not just individual depictions of the character) is both copyrighted and trademarked. See the link I provided above.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that what we should take away from this is that the safest course of action is to assume that there is no such thing as a copyright-free picture of Superman. Therefore, we have to decide if each individual use of a picture conforms to legal and wikipedia policy criteria for fair use. Using a copyrighted picture of Superman in an article on Superman is fair use because it plays an essential role in the reader's understanding of the character, but using the same image in an article on Jerry Seinfeld just because he likes Superman and talks about him a lot in his standup routines likely is not going to qualify as fair use. It is not bizarre at all for us to remove the picture from this list without removing it from every other article on wikipedia. We are volunteers, editing this article because we are interested in it; we have no obligation to police the entirety of Wikipedia for copyright vios. If you want to take on the task of checking each use of the picture, then more power to you.

I have a question for you, though. Three people now have tried to explain to you not only why it is safest not to use a picture of Superman, but that a picture of Superman really isn't necessary for this article. You have spent a considerable amount of time arguing that the images should be fair use. I haven't seen you give a reason to include a picture of him. Can you give an explanation of how an image of Superman would enhance readers' understanding of a list of vegetarians? The list already has plenty (and I would argue too many) images of real vegetarians, so why should the inclusion of Superman's picture enhance it, rather than just being more clutter. Considering the fact that vegetarianism isn’t integral to the character or even canonical, as I discussed in the Happy Cow section, I think you should ask yourself why having a Superman picture on this list is so important to you that you would spend so much time arguing for the "legality" of it, when you don't even explain the value of it. Why spend all this time on this issue when there is so much more valuable editing you could be doing to other articles on the project? Ask yourself, is it because you really think that the picture would materially enhance readers' understanding of the subject, or just because you don't want to "lose" an argument?Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm attempting to understand the rationale without being sidetracked by the side issues. We originally had an image that was challenged on a fair use basis and I can at least follow the argument even if I don't agree with the conclusion. I can follow the logic of how other editors are interpreting the fair use criteria, because I can look at the guidelines for evaluating fair use. What I'm strugling to understand is the legality of trademarked work in the public domain. How does a trademark impact on work that is out of copyright? Are there Wikipedia guidelines for this? Do we have to provide a fair use reason for trademark infringement like we do for copyright infringement? Or is this just a patchwork view you have drawn from various guidelines and policies? You are asking me to accept your interpretation, but I don't know what it's an interpretation of. Are there any Wikipedia guidelines for evaluating whether something is trademark infringement? What is the protocol for using something that is possibly trademarked? At the moment I'm not really in a position to even disagree with you because you're asking me to accept something on faith. All this is clearly laid out for copyright, so I guess what I really want to know is the Wikipedia view/consensus/policy for determing what may be trademarked and what the provisions are for using it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no such thing as “fair use reason for infringement”, be it copyright, or trademark. You are either the owner of an intellectual property, licensed to use that property, engaging in a fair use of that property, or infringing on the property rights of the owner. The first three are legal, infringement is not. We do not engage in copyright infringement issues here, we engage in fair use, by abiding by copyright law.

Next, remember that we are talking about BOTH trademark AND copyright here, even on your substitute image.

Trademark: Trademark law is governed by the Lanham Act, which permits a non-owner of a registered trademark to make "fair use" or "nominative use" of a trademark under certain circumstances without obtaining permission from the mark's owner. So again, with trademark, “fair use” comes into play. That means the nature and character of the use is going to decide whether or not the use is appropriate. Using a trademarked property for purely decorative purposes is not going to fly. Wikipedia consensus doesn’t really matter, it is the Lanham Act you have to abide by.

Copyright:An author can claim copyright on a character that he invented. Not just on his depictions of that character that he actually penned, but ANY depiction of that character. That means that any depiction of the character, even if you drew a picture of Superman, scanned it, and posted it here, would be subject to DC and Siegel’s copyright. That means you have to follow fair use rules for that particular picture.

So even if you chose not to “accept [my] interpretation” when it comes to trademark, you’re still stuck with the fact that Superman’s likeness, no matter who drew it or when, is copyrighted, and thus subject to fair use rules.

I don’t blame you for not understanding copyright or trademark law, it’s complicated stuff, but I am not asking you to “accept something on faith,” you’re welcome to doubt my interpretation all you want, but since my interpretation is in doubt (and not rejected yet), that means the right to use the Superman image in this context is also in doubt (because it is not clearly proven), and so the best course of action is: WHEN IN DOUBT, LEAVE IT OUT, and that is the main thing I have been saying all this time.Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As for why I am insisting on a picture of Superman, if you look at the early part of this debate you will see I was not that bothered about Superman per se. I asked Kayau to replace the image with another image of his choosing because it looked odd for the section to not have an image when all the others did. He wouldn't pick one out so that's why I added in this public domain image. For the record I wasn't the one who started adding the images, I preferred the list without them if I'm honest - if people want to print it out that's an awful lot of ink down the drain.. Betty Logan (talk) 18:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well the, why have you spent so much time arguing this, and insisting on reverting all the deletions?The Superman image doesn't even line up with the section of fictional vegetarians, so your claim that "it looked odd for the section not to have an image" doesn't carry any water. Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well look, I took your concerns about trademark infringement to the public domain page to see if they can clarify the Wikipedia policy for me. If you wish to take it out, I won't revert unless I do get come responses confirming that I can use it. As for the image alignment, the images overlap sections because they are a column of images so the rule of thumb is that they stay roughly parallel. It's impossible to control the alignment completely because new additions alter the alignment and the alignment is dependent on the browser. For some reason Firefox doesn't align them properly. The alternative is to put pictures in the relevant sections but you get unequal gaps. Like I said I was never a fan of introducing the images in the first place, but the reason I'm disputing the Superman image is to less to with including the image and more to do with understanding why I can't, if that makes sense to you. I don't get in pointless debates for the fun of it, I prefer to just get on with editing but if something like this crops up I want to understand the issues because ultimately they will crop up again, if not on this article then others. Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have listed this issue on the Media copyright questions discussion board to encourage more input towards broader consensus.Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the discussion on the public domain page if you're interested: Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Can_.22likeness.22_still_be_copyrighted_in_public_domain_content.3F. It seems to be splitting the editors. If the discussion doesn't result in a definitive answer I will remove the image myself in a couple of days, although if anyone removes it before then I won't add it back unless this situation becomes more clear cut. It's probably best to add a link to that discussion in yours, no point holding the debate in two different places. Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you and I were doing the same thing at the same time, but on different boards. I asked that the discussion I started be closed so that the one you started will be primary. ooks like from your discussion the legal issue is clear that Superman's likeness is still copyrighted by DC even though the Fleisher copyright lapsed, so DC has rights in the Fleisher cartoon.Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I will stick to my word, if there isn't decisive outcome from the discussion and it looks like there won't be I'll take the image down myself on Friday. I think it's a discussion worth having though because it's certainly a grey area that I really think ought to be clarified on Wikipedia. Thanks all the same for giving your time to this topic. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It really isn't a "gray area" or deficiency in Wikipedia's policy, though. It's unreasonable to expect Wikipedia to have an interpretation on the copyright status of every distinct work, or to re-enumerate copyright law. Wikipedia provides reasonable general guidelines of what is and is not free work, and rightfully puts the burden of checking the copyright status of a work on the editor. Wikipedia's policy on when to use and when not to use non-free material is also clear, eg: "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (WP:NFC) There is also the very simple principle of "when in doubt (about whether or not an image is non-free, or whether or not the use of a non-free image is appropriate) leave it out." Please note that WP:NFC also states: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created."The failure has not been on Wikipedia's side, but just that some editors don't understand that a character, and its likeness, can be copyrighted, which means that even if you, Betty Logan, were to hand-draw a totally original picture of Superman, and scan it and post it here, DC and the Siegel family would still have rights to it. This piece clearly enumerates that: [[6]]. There really is no question here that no image of Superman is entirely non-free, and thus, "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" comed into play, and for this list of vegetarians, a picture of Superman, any picture of superman, is not going to pass that test.Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You've said all of this already, and completely overlooked the response to a discussion you started at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#List_of_vegetarians_Superman_image_copyright.2Ftrademark_issue. The response to a discussion you solicited states In Wikipedia terms, if something is trademarked but not copyrighted, we can use it anywhere, not to mention the responses at Wikipedia_talk:Public_domain#Can_.22likeness.22_still_be_copyrighted_in_public_domain_content.3F. Like I said, I will take the image down later if there isn't a decisive conclusion in those discussions. But no matter how much you contest this is obviously a grey area since there are other editors who are interpreting the law differently. Betty Logan (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ms. Logan. I didn't "disregard" it, I brought up trademark to make sure we weren't overlooking it, found out that trademark was not an issue, so I'm not concerned about that anymore. However, I brought two issues up separately - trademark, and copyright. Trademark is trademark and copyright is copyright, two separate issues. I am sorry I even brought up trademark, because you just can't seem to understand the difference between trademark and copyright. postdlf is also trying to get you to see you are confusing the two, when he says "but I'm not talking about trademarks at all, so don't get distracted by that. I'm only talking about copyright." Forget trademark. Trademark is not an issue. Copyright still is an issue and NO ONE is interpreting copyright law differently. I keep having to repeat myself because you keep not getting what I or others are saying.postdlf has made it very clear that "the graphic character of Superman remains protected by copyright in all of its iterations." As he said, "short of an official statement from DC declaring that they themselves believe the cartoons can be copied freely, we have to assume that images of Superman from the Fleischer cartoons are not free." Consensus has been reached.Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, I just happen to disagree with it. Of the two independent discussions we have one editor agrees with you and two others believe the material is available to use, so the consensus is clearly split. That is clearly the point of gaining impartial advice. As I stated I am willing to abide by impartial advice that goes against my view, but you don't seem to be willing to do likewise. This clearly isn't a case of "me" just not understanding the situation since there are other editors that support my view on this, yet you would have it that I'm misunderstanding the law with no support for my position, and that you are correct, which is just not the case. This is anything but clear cut, and the law certainly isn't clear in this respect because editors are arriving at different conslusions. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Which editors do you think are saying that the material is available to use? Prosfilaes? On the trademark issue, he was correct, but on the copyright issue his opinion was given before postdlf and DCGeist brought up the issue of a character being copyrighted apart from a work being copyrighted, so there would still be a copyright on Superman, even in the copyright-lapsed Fleischer cartoon. Prosfilaes did not respond to this new information, so we can only conclude he had nothing to counter it, ie he agreed with it. Who else? Andrew c? He initially told you trademarked material was okay to use, but on the copyright issue, he again has stressed to you that trademark and copyright are different, and he has not said that Superman is not copyrighted and therefore free to use. Mostly, he stressed the message that I and others have consistently tried to wake you up to: the picture isn't necessary for the list, and if there is any question about the free/non-free issue of material, it's best just not to use it at all. If you had just listened to that, there would be no reason for all this discussion. So therefore, your statement "one editor agrees with you and two others believe the material is available to use, so the consensus is clearly split," is not at all accurate, and at any rate, consensus is not about votes WP:PRACTICAL. I can't believe that you are trying to claim that you are willing to accept impartial advice that is against your view while I am not, since on this entire issue you have done nothing but argue why either superman picture is okay to use to anyone who has said otherwise - Kayau, Weaponbb7, me, and when postdlf explained copyright issues to you, rather than accepting that, you bring up the trademark issue, as if that makes a difference on the copyright issue.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Kayau and User:Weaponbb7 have not actually responded within the context of this discussion. User:Kayau accepted the use of the public domain replacement. User:Weaponbb7 removed the image on the basis it didn't have a fair use rationale, which was at odds with the requirements of teh current licence. I have requested that he clarifies his position, but since he has declined we can't assume his poistion within the context of this debate. Given the further arguments presented in this debate we can assume nothing about either of their positions. User:postdlf fully supports your view while User:Hammersoft refutes your position and fully supports mine. User:Prosfilaes initially supported my reasoning, and does respond to later concerns by pointing that that DC haven't issued cease and desists notices for retailers of the Fleischer cartoon. User:DCGeist follows User:postdlf's argument but again has trouble understanding why DC isn't more aggressive in enforcing its copyright in regards to the cartoons, and ultimately doesn't express an opinion either way. It's pretty obvious opinion is divided. In the context of this debate, you have one supporter and I have two from stated positions within the three discussions. I don't see how that indicates a decisive view in your favor.Betty Logan (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll say it once more so maybe it will sink in: consensus is not about voting, as WP:CONSENSUS clearly states. DCGeist's link, and postdlf's explanation of it is by far the clearest, most cogent, most authoritative. No one has refuted it. As WP:PRACTICALsays: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." The link Hammersoft's position was disproven by the link DCGeist provided. The question of DC not defending its copyright in the dollar dvds of the cartoons is a nonstarter - is there even any proof that the dvd producer didn't pay a nominal licensing fee to DC? And even if they didn't, DC has aggressively defended its Superman copyright multiple times; overlooking some discount bin dvds it may or may not even be aware of isn't going to prove lapse of its copyright by acquiescence. I can't believe I have spent so much time trying to make you see reason when you won't, I was trying to help you, but I wasted time that could have been spent elsewhere. If you want to spend your time trying to prove that Superman pictures can and should be on lists of vegetarians, good for you, but I'm out.Mmyers1976 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Reconciling with list of Vegans

Since it's impossible to be a vegan without being a vegetarian, I think everyone included on the list of vegans should be included on this list with an asterisk (or some other identifier). This would match the format of similar de facto overlapping lists. For example, a list of entertainers from Michigan (let's say) would include people that would also be on a list for the U.S. Is anyone opposed to this? --Jleon (talk) 19:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. There used to be a separate section on this article for vegans, but the consensus was made to separate the list to keep the size down, since this article is already over the recommended size limit for articles. Since the list had its own vegan section it was logical to just make that into a separate list. By the same logic we should perhaps fold the list of vegetarians into the List of pescetarians, since vegetarianism is a subset of pescetarianism. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Cow references

User:Weaponbb7 removed Superman from the group of fictional vegetarians because he did not consider http://www.happycow.net/famous_vegetarians.html] to be a reliable source. There are plenty of sources for Superman, so it's a moot point in his case. Happy Cow has always been accepted on here because in most cases it is usually accurate. In some cases the person in question may be disputed, but generally I've never know it to be plain wrong. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it meets the criteria for being a reliable source, and it's not the first time its use has been challenged. Maybe it's time we consider striking it off as a reliable source, since it's no good if editors and readers external to this list don't trust its information. They have their own list and it could be left in as an external link for anyone who does regard them as reliable. There aren't that many names sourced through it and most of them can probably be replaced. Is there anyone with an opinion on this? Betty Logan (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away on this. Happy Cow is a pro-vegetarian site, and so it is going to appropriate Superman as a vegetarian to promote its agenda if there is any information that would suggest he is vegetarian. I don't see anything wrong with doing that, but evidence that is "good enough" for Happy Cow's purposes is not good enough for encyclopedic purposes, to include an iconic character in a list of vegetarians. Let's examine the issue of Superman, a fictional character, being vegetarian. Is this an integral trait to this fictional character? Does this trait even have continuity throughout the character's 70+ year history? No. This was something that was only introduced by one author, in 2003, as a minor detail for that author's comic book series. There isn't even evidence that the trait has been picked up by subsequent writers and will continue on. It is hardly canonical. If I were to take sides, I would !vote for deleting Superman from the list, but I don't feel strongly about it, so I'm not going to push for its removal.

So back to the issue of whether or not we should "consider striking [Happy Cow] off as a reliable source," once and for all because of its haste to include Superman, that would be an extreme thing to do. Unless a source is egregiously wrong on multiple issues, it is our job as editors to use our judgement to determine if a source is reliably reporting each individual issue for which we are using it as a source, and allow consensus and the editing process in general to double-check our judgement for us.Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't really know that much about Superman's history/canonical diet so to speak. We do have "disputed" and "former vegetarian" tags for controversial people though, since the goal of the article isn't really to decide who is or isn't a vegetarian. We just publish the claims, and sometimes there is evidence for and against so we just include both to stop what I call the "Hitler edit wars". There seems to be a lot of literature around to suggest Superman is/was/at some point was vegetarian, but if there is evidence counter to that we just add it in. "Happy Cow" seems to be the source that is disputed the most though since it doesn't provide anything to back up its claims, and I suspect better sources could be found in its place. Betty Logan (talk)

The first sources that come up in Yahoo! search are [7] and [8]. The latter doesn't look very impressive, but there is some chance that the former could be reliable in my opinion. Kayau Voting IS evil 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced it with a defended Masters thesis. Wikipedia considers scholarly articles and published disserations to be reliable sources, so I don't see why that wouldn't be considered sufficient. If it isn't enough we can always cite the actual comic issue itself. Betty Logan (talk) 03:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Gere

In the IMDB is stated that Gere is not a vegetarian. Why is it not a reliable source? (Happy Cow is not a reliable source either!) And why does the source claiming that he is a vegetarian is more reliable than IMDB? (That source claims that Paltrow, who was seen cooking a dead chicken on TV is a vegetarian; it also lists Hartnett, how is not longer a vegetarian). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonidas Metello (talk • contribs) 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

IMDB isn't a reliable source because it is user generated, and user-generated sources are not reliable sources. As for Happy Cow see the discussion above; I suggested replacing the Happy Cow sources in the discussion above, but the recommendation wasn't taken up. If you feel strongly that Happy Cow shouldn't be used add your views to the Happy Cow discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

What I think is that the site that claims Gere is a vegetarian is not reliable either because it contains some mistakes, as I previously noticed. The IMDB site may not be 100% reliable, but in this specific case it does cite the source to support Gere’s non-vegetarianism: «On the November 16, 2007 episode of "Live with Regis" (1988) (aka "Live with Regis & Kelly"), he cleared up the fact he is not vegetarian but has not eaten red meat for 30 years.»

(He supports vegetarianism, but that doesn’t mean he practice it himself). Leonidas Metello (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is we can't verify a TV show. Someone has entered that information on IMDB but we can't check that it's true, unless there is a clip online somewhere. I think the way to approach this is to take Happy Cow to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and get their view on it. If they rule it's not a reliable source then we should pull out all names that uses HappyCow as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You've confused me, I thought you were saying that Gere's vegetarianism was sourced through Happy Cow. Happy Cow itself says Gere might not be vegetarian: http://www.happycow.net/famous/richard_gere/. Just use that source to add a disputed tag, because Happy Cow in this instance back up their claim with evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Leonidas Metello (talk) 21:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I just said that not everything from Happy Cow is reliable (for instance, Andy Serkis is no longer a vegetarian). However, it seems that they are correcting the mistakes and making it more reliable. Leonidas Metello (talk) 22:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy at all with the Happy Cow list being used as a source. However, when they qualify their claims with evidence such as in the Gere case I think that might be ok. To be fair to them, being slightly out of date doesn't necessarily make them unreliable for reporting facts, and I think many of the sources on this article are a bit dubious but there was a time when this list didn't have any sources at all so we've come a long way since then! Personally I'd like to tighten the whole claim thing up and make it a requirement that a quote is supplied either by the person in question, or by a noted authority on that person's life. At the moment I think we permit too much celebrity gossip. Betty Logan (talk) 22:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Saint Paul

1 Corinthians 8:13 (NIV) "...I will never eat meat again..." 76.212.128.2 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't see St Paul on the list. I do wonder how he should be catergorised though?--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Greta Salpeter and Cheryl Cole.

Cheryl Cole (UK) and Greta Salpeter of The Hush Sound and Gold Motel (US) have both stated that they are vegetarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.123.112.122 (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If you find me a reference, I'll add them--TimothyJacobson (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey Should Be Added to the List

Morrissey, from the Smiths should be added because he is a very prominent and outspoken vegetarian (one of the Smiths albums is called Meat is Murder.) In an interview with PETA in 1985, he said: " I became a vegetarian when I was about 11 or 12 years old. My mother was a staunch vegetarian as long as I can remember. We were very poor and I thought that meat was a good source of nutrition. Then I learned the truth. I guess you could say I repent for those years now." 76.176.167.21 (talk) 15:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.167.21 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Morrissey is listed at List of vegans; we've given the vegans their own article since this one was getting too large. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler was Austrian

Adolf Hitler is listed as being German. He was actually born in the Austrian town of Braunau am Inn. Deterence ^Talk 08:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The chart uses the current nationality, since it wouldn't make sense to list someone under their birth country if they have emigrated. For people who have died their nationality is left as it is at the time of their death. Hitler relinquished his Austrian nationality and became a German citizen, so his listing under Germany is consistent with the other entries. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How can we include the Hindu god Lord Krishna in this list?

Almost all Hindu gods are vegetarians. Why should we include only Lord Krishna in this list? If it is needed then there should be made a special list of vegetarianism in religion and mythology. And here too, if we were to put all Hindu gods, then the article might contain countless number of gods.Vanischenu^TM 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Brigitte Bardot

Despite Brigitte Bardot claims to be a vegetarian, several sources including her own books (Le carré de Pluton, 1999, and several interviews) tell she eats regularly fish (around once a month). French Wikipedia references her as a pescetarian too. The confusion probably comes from the fact Brigitte Bardot considers eating fish as compatible with vegetarianism, which is a common mistake in France. I have removed Brigitte Bardot from the vegetarian list to move her to the pescetarian one. --Violaine2 (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you please provide a page number for the book? It is widely reported that she is vegetarian so readers may want to verify that she does indeed each fish, and it will be difficult for English readers to find teh information in a 700 page book. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)