Wikipedia

Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 4

< Talk:List of vegetarians
Latest comment: 4 years ago by RockMagnetist in topic The problem with this list
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Tobey Maguire

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've found several articles that show Maguire as vegan not just (lacto-ovo-)vegetarian - http://www.sfgate.com/entertainment/article/Jim-Sheridan-directs-Brothers-3208332.php http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-culture/blogs/tobey-maguire-rejects-mercedes-with-leather-seats Even his wiki page says in 2009 be went from vegetarian (since 2002) to vegan.

Shouldn't he be put in the former vegetarian list? (Seems strange though because its not like he started to eat meat but stopped eating dairy and eggs.) Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 04:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone who moves on to veganism would not be added to the "former" section (since they are still vegetarian), they would just be removed entirely from this list and added to List of vegans. The vegan list was split off from this article to keep the two lists distinct. Betty Logan (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Modonna - former vegetarian

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Music/9901/19/madonna.lkl/ In an interview, in 1999, with Larry King Madonna said she became a vegetarian because of her older brother, Anthony. She was vegetarian since 15, until 1999 (40?) so for 25 years.

And according to NYMAG in 2013, http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/07/madonnas-diet-is-the-hardest-i-have-ever-tried.html Regarding her diet: "Madonna follows a very strict macrobiotic diet that abolishes the consumption of wheat, eggs, meats, and dairy, and extolls the benefits of something called “sea vegetables.”" which would be considered vegan.

And according to a 2001 article she didn't consider her self vegetarian as she hunted and ate what she hunted, since her husband at the time Guy Ritchie was a fisher and hunter. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1711494.stm

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2007/apr/29/foodanddrink1 The guardian notes her on-again-off-again vegetarianism. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Madonna looks like a valid addition to the "former" list. The Guardian source is already included in the article (ref 263) so just use that one if you want to add her. Also, you don't need permission to add names to the list (provided they are accompanied by a valid source), unless of course the source is challenged in which case a consensus has to be formed. Betty Logan (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's 'Vegetarianism'

Latest comment: 9 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

Hitler was not a vegetarian. Although he declared himself one, he did not adhere to his diet and liked to eat sausages.

www.naturalnews.com/025163_hitler_vegetarian_vegetarianism.html [unreliable fringe source?] http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html220.245.49.25 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Neither of the sources you cite is acceptable for such assertions. michaelbluejay.com is the personal website of someone with no apparent qualifications as a historian, and naturalnews.com is a fringe conspiracy-theory website. I suggest that you read the material cited in Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, and look through the archives for this page, where this has been extensively discussed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Many other websites also stated that Hitler was not a vegetarian, that he only pretended to be one: http://foodrevolution.org/blog/hitler-a-vegetarian/ http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html https://www.facebook.com/notes/markus-ziman/hitler-was-not-vegetarian-by-gary-yourofsky/564852376889902220.245.49.25 (talk) 02:08, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear AndyTheGrump, I have read the references that you say are 'reliable sources'(not the ones that user 220.245.49.25 said). These sources say nothing about whether or not he is vegetarian. For example, reference number 188 (The Enigma of Hitler) said nothing about if he is vegetarian (it just says he enjoys vegetable soup). Therefore, this means that the sources mentioned by user 220.245.49.25 are reliable sources, and that Hitler, at least, should be put into the disputed list.LeoLi1234 (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment There have been a spate of POV pushing in regards to Hitler by IPs and SPA accounts. This has been previously discussed at #Problematic_edit there is actually no dispute over Hitler's vegetarianism among professional historians. As outlined at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism there are plenty of reports of Hitler consuming meat prior to the war, and it is these accounts that are principally relied upon to rewrite history that Hitler was not, in fact, a vegetarian. Most of these sources—usually authored by people with a connection to vegetarian advocacy—resort to quoting Dionne Lucas who was a chef at a restaurant patronised by Adolf Hitler, who in her book The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964) claimed that stuffed quab was a favorite of Hitler's, and The New York Timesin "At Home with the Fuhrer" (May 30, 1937) reported that Hitler was mostly vegetarian but occasionally consumed a slice of ham and caviar.
1937: According to Ilse Hess (wife of Rudolph) Hitler gave up eating all meat except for liver dumplings. Reported by John Toland in Adolf Hitler (1976).
November 1938: Home and Gardens report that Hitler is "life-long vegetarian" and that John Simon and Anthony Eden were impressed by the "imposing array of vegetarian dishes, savoury and rich, pleasing to the eye as well as to the palate".
January 1942: Stenographic accounts in Hitler's table talks record Hitler self-identifying as a vegetarian: "I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."
December 1942: Traudl Junge is appointed Hitler's personal secretary, and in her memoirs wrote "..he ate only side dishes - always avoiding meat. His Austrian cook Kruemel believed that life without meat was not worth living, and would often try to sneak a little animal broth or fat into the meal. Mostly the Fuehrer would notice the attempt at deception, would get very annoyed and then get tummy ache. At the end he would only let Kruemel cook him clear soup and mashed potato."
1941–1944: Margot Woelk was made to work as Hitler's "food taster" at the Wolf's Lair. She recalled "It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish."
There is a clear choronology here. Hitler consumed meat up to at least 1937. In January 1942 he self-identified as a vegetarian and there are no reports conflicting with this statement; indeed, witness testimony from his private secretary and his food taster are entirely consistent with Hitler's proclomation. Yes, there are many contemporary accounts from an earlier stage of Hitler's life that confirm he ate meat, but not from 1942 onwards; many of the modern sources that report Hitler ate meat are usually sloppily research pieces by newspapers or by vegetarian advocates pushing an agenda, but not by reputable historians. Self-identification is deemed an acceptable criteria for everyone else on the list, and it is not a requirement that people have never eaten meat so I don't see why the bar should be set higher for Hitler. Sources by legitimate historians should not be removed infavor of poorly researched newspaper pieces and propaganda by vegetarian advocacy groups. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
(ec) @LeoLi1234: firstly, I suggest that you drop the pretence that you and 220.245.49.25 are different people - it is obvious from your edit histories that you are the same person. As for your point about the 'Enigma of Hitler' source, that is clearly invalid, but you give no indication of having looked at the others. Have you? And no, demonstrating that other sources aren't valid (which you haven't yet done, except for one) doesn't magically make unreliable sources reliable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
In regards to the source that Leo says is not valid, "The Enigma of Adolf Hitler by Leon Degrelle states "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed." Now that doesn't actually use the word "vegetarian", but it clearly comments on Hitler's meat-eating tendencies by someone who knew him. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Betty Logan, Liver Dumplings are not vegetarian.LeoLi1234 (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of that. But there is no evidence of him eating them from 1938 onwards, and certainly neither his personal secretary nor his food taster mention him eating them after he declared himself to be vegetarian in January 1942. The fact you are draing your information from vegetarian sites gives away your motivations here, since no reasonable person would consider such sources as "neutral". Betty Logan (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

OK. Wikipedia has a policy that racist and sexist posts are abuse. Now, why, is speciesism acceptable on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoLi1234 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I believe the relevant policies here are WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Racism and Sexism also points of views under your definition of point of view? Ok. I'm not trying to be racist or sexist. By banning racism and sexism, and allowing speciesism, you are not respecting the interests of other species. This will render Wikipedia un-neutral.LeoLi1234 (talk) 04:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Go away and read WP:NPOV before you make even more of a fool of yourself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we please peacefully talk our way out of this?LeoLi1234 (talk) 04:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless and until you show signs of having read the Wikipedia policies linked, and can stay on topic rather than using this page as a forum for off-topic rants about 'speciesism', there really isn't much to talk about. Nothing you have raised hasn't been discussed before, and the fact that vegetarians (including myself incidentally) aren't particularly happy that Hitler was amongst our number doesn't alter the fact that the historical evidence clearly indicates that in the last few years of his life he was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Also as vegetarian, I agree with Andy that there is nothing to talk about unless you are directly challenging the validity of the sources. Anyway, I have separated claims of Hitler simply not eating meat and fish from actual claims of vegetarianism since they are slightly different assertions. Betty Logan (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will leave this article unchanged unless there is further evidence disproving his vegetarianism.LeoLi1234 (talk) 08:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone else care about the neutrality of Wikipedia?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

The page is still far too promotional. We have promotional bios in the 'occupation' field and promotional pictures and captions. Is ther any way that we can establish a policy for this page to make it a neutral list only? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

We have a policy WP:NPOV which applies to all articles. I will have some spare time over xmas and pitch in with cleaning up the occupations. On another note did you remove the wrong entry here: [1]? The edit summary doesn't match up to the edit, and in truth unless you are challenging the sources I don't see a problem. Thanks for reverting the disruptive IP btw. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
My apologies, I falsely accuse thou...it was the IP. He over-wrote the Eugen d'Albert with da Vinci. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No problem, but can you think how we can stop this page from looking like a promotional pamphlet for vegetarianism. At the moment is reads alon the lines of, 'Look at all these wonderful sucessful people. They were all vegetarians and they all got the the top if their fields.'. I still do not see the point of the list or of the occupation column but, if we must have them, let us make sure it is just a list of people.
It is easy to see how some people see this list from the fact that there are always editors wanting to remove Hitler and add Leonardo. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think once the occupation column is overhauled the biggest problem will be addressed. The images arguably should have a better balance between "revered" and "notorious" people as well to avoid issues like at Talk:List_of_vegans#Remove_Capleton_from_headlines. Ultimately the article will always attract vegetarian activists attempting to whitewash it due to its nature, so it just has to be kept in check so there is a decent balance. If you Google this topic you will get incredibly biased lists; ours is not bad by contrast, but obviously there is still room for improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I think picture captions hould be reduced to a name only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

To me the occupation of vegetarians seems off topic and being given undue weight in this article. A link to a notable vegetarian's article is more than enough. If anything there should be a short write-up paraphrasing the source to indicate why they are thought to be vegetarians. The pictures are excessive, 4 or 5 pictures of particularly notable people are plenty. Encyclopedias are not picture galleries and right now the pictorial content outweighs the textual content. Chillum 17:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

"let us make sure it is just a list of people"
Well the issue is notability is a requirement for wikipedia article as well as sourcing so I might know of people that are vegetarians but they can't be added to the list due to those requirements. This is as far as I know how most lists are done here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:LISTPEOPLE#Lists_of_people
"At the moment is reads alon the lines of, 'Look at all these wonderful sucessful people. They were all vegetarians and they all got the the top if their fields.'"
I don't see how it reads that way if one is reading it objectively although the images used would have to be balanced between sex and gender, as well as nationality, occupation and infamy. Is this the only article that you wish would remove occupations or should all of them remove those column? Many list on wikipedia have people listed with their jobs. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afro-Latinos https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Living_Treasures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Baptists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bisexual_people:_A-F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Brazilians_of_Black_African_descent Some lists are so big that they have to become separated by an additional category like career. But here are examples of those lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_Australians Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lacto-Vegetarians Vs Ovo-Vegetarians

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi Editors, this page needs to be divided into vegetarians types. For example Gandhi was a lacto vegetarian and would have found egg consumption abhorent. DeludedFan (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing is likely to be an issue - in many cases, people are simply described as 'vegetarian'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Having a column that allows for specifying such a thing when available would not be too dissimilar from other lists that have a notes column. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
We do have a notes section for offering further information. There is not much point having an extra column unless it will be heavily utilised. As Andy points out in most cases people don't usually specify which kind of vegetarian they are. Betty Logan (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why there is no category to place vegetarian people in?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Seems like it would make this page obsolete, plus make it easier to list the various subcategories of vegetarian (e.g. ovo-lacto,pisco) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.0.35 (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There used to be a category but it was deleted since it wasn't considered to be a "defining characteristic". See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_8#Category:Vegetarians for the full discussion. In practice though it is not usually known if someone is a lacto or ovo vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Disputed Section: separating verifiably false from tentative from genuinely disputed

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I think there are two separate problems with the "disputed" section.

Firstly, it would be really useful to have a talk page on which to keep a permanent record of the verifiably non-veg people who keep getting removed (eg: Abraham Lincoln). And to perhaps leave a warning notice on the page pointing to it. I can find nothing in the Wikipedia space about this, so I wanted to ask more experienced hands: is this something that just doesn't happen on Wikipedia, or is there a protocol for it I don't know about?

Secondly, could we differentiate the different categories of disputed? There are the people who were verifiably vegetarian, but only at one point at the end of their lives (Einstein), those for whom the refs verifiable but inherently weak (Newton), and still those who were verifiably non-vegetarian. I know "disputed" is a term of art on Wikipedia, but it doesn't really describe a consensus of tentative uncertainty.

I have proposals in mind, but I wanted to discover if anyone else had any first.Ian McDonald (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think keeping a record of people removed from the list would be a good idea. This would be similar to the practice at Talk:List of vegans. As for the "disputed" section I am not sure we need to differentiate: it is meant to record people where there is a genuine dispute. People who are there through mis-reporting (Einstein is a prime example) should simply be removed from the list, since there is no evidence he was ever vegetarian, and there is evidence to the contrary. Charlotte Bronte is another entry that should probably be removed on the same basis. The "disputed" section should only list people where there are genuine conflicting claims. Betty Logan (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the list of oft-removed is a good idea. I'll let this sit for a few days before implementing. Ian McDonald (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
A consensus of tentative uncertainty (there is some evidence that Newton was vegetarian, but it is not decisive) is quite different from a "genuine conflicting claims". Thus I'd like some clarification on why you think they belong together. Ian McDonald (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
BTW, the list entry Einstein has a reference to a letter from the man himself saying he was vegetarian. I haven't double-checked it, and a preceding letter says he wasn't, but that seems to be the basis for putting him in the 'disputed' list rather than the straight 'vegetarian' list. And - unless you're challenging the citation - definitely reason enough for him being at least on the disputed list. But let's sort out the strategy before we sort out the individual entries. Ian McDonald (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The goal of the article is to list vegetarians, not people who might be vegetarian. In a small minority of cases there are conflicting claims regarding somebody's vegetarianism such that it would not be neutral to ignore the counter-claims and add their name to the list. The "disputed" section exists to deal with this set of people. By "conflicting claims" I mean that there is clear evidence that somebody is vegetarian (not just rumored to be vegetarian) and there is clear evidence that somebody is not vegetarian (that is, the vegetarianism of the person isn't just questioned, but evidence is presented as to why they are not). If the case for somebody's vegetarianism is not substantive (i.e. a quote, a letter, witness testimony etc) or mis-reported then they should not be added to the list in any capacity per WP:RUMOUR. Before initiating any sweeping changes to the article I think we should perhaps consider specific examples, because it looks to me we are in danger of creating a solution looking for a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The specific examples I have in mind are people obscured by the fog of history. The Apostle James was believed by early Christians to be vegetarian (until I dig up the references, I appreciate this is "for the sake of the argument"). So was Plato, in later antiquity. We don't really know whether they were or not, and we view the traditions about them with due scepticism - but much of our knowledge comes from those traditions. I suppose my question boils down to: how does WP:RUMOUR apply to sparsely documented ancient history? Particularly for lists, which collapse the nuance of carefully attributed claims.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 72 external links on List of vegetarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 13 external links on List of vegetarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

IVU unreliable source

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi User:Betty Logan. Please would you explain why you consider the IVU to be an unreliable source?[2] It is cited in the article on Tony Blackburn as well as about 200 other places in Wikipedia.--Shantavira|feed me 12:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, surely the question here should be what qualifies it as a WP:Reliable source? Wikipedia:Verifiability provides various examples of reliable sources: University-level textbooks, Books published by respected publishing houses, Magazines, Journals, Mainstream newspapers. The International Vegetarian Union does not seem to qualify under any of those. Moreover, WP:NOTRELIABLE states: Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest.[8] Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely considered by other sources to be extremist or promotional, or that rely heavily on unsubstantiated gossip, rumor or personal opinion. There seems to be no evidence of editorial oversight, and the IVU even provides a form for adding people to the list. This was discussed once before by Ian.thomson at Talk:List_of_vegetarians/Archive_3#Removing_a_questionable_source and I stand by his assessment of the source. If Tony Blackburn is indeed a vegetarian then there must be more reliable sources out there that have recorded his views on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of vegetarians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Names needing sources

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please list here names missing or removed from the page because of poor sourcing, then tick when the name is restored.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of vegetarians. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Adof Hitler Heavily Disputed! Embarrasment to Wiki

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Is Adolf Hitler still in this list? o.O

It shows there are people with an agenda writing in here: Adolf Hitler ate many sorts of meat dishes, ate sausages & pigeons and even asked as his last meal to have meat - and ate it! Ohh yeah which was right before he killed his dog to test his suicide pill ..

Euhh which vegetarian would do that?

Also your own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism#Recent_POV_edits page has many (and I KNOW some have even been deleted in the past) disputes of the claim:

> "Traudl Junge, who became Hitler's secretary in 1942, reported that he "always avoided meat" but that his Austrian cook Kruemel sometimes added a little animal broth or fat to his meals." = NOT an vegetarian!

> "All accounts by people familiar with Hitler's diet from 1942 onwards are in agreement that Hitler adhered to a vegetarian diet, but accounts of his diet prior to the Second World War are inconsistent in this regard with some stating he ate meat." = NOT an vegetarian!

> "Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl (liver dumpling)" = NOT an vegetarian!

If you want to debate if he was or wasnt, or even about Nazi's writing animal welfare laws is one thing; but Hitler NOT being in the Disputed list embarrasses the whole of Wikipedia!


It is like writing a wiki article saying that coz they like them so much, pedofiles are NICE to children - puhlease come on ..


And to state that "Joseph Goebbels described Hitler as a committed vegetarian" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism) as 'proof' is VERY naieve: Goebbels was Reich's Minister of Propaganda & he lied about a lot of stuff, also about what they did to the Jews! The Red Cross even believed him! Your same page describes tha Nazi's antivivisectionism .. pardon!? They experimented on humans AND animals! Not really anitivivisectionist in my mind .. Pseudohistory! 83.232.236.169 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not on what you personally insist on. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Did u read at all what I wrote?

Also your own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism#Recent_POV_edits page has many (and I KNOW some have even been deleted in the past) disputes of the claim:

> "Traudl Junge, who became Hitler's secretary in 1942, reported that he "always avoided meat" but that his Austrian cook Kruemel sometimes added a little animal broth or fat to his meals." = NOT an vegetarian!

> "All accounts by people familiar with Hitler's diet from 1942 onwards are in agreement that Hitler adhered to a vegetarian diet, but accounts of his diet prior to the Second World War are inconsistent in this regard with some stating he ate meat." = NOT an vegetarian!

> "Fritz Redlich noting that Hitler "avoided any kind of meat, with the exception of an Austrian dish he loved, Leberknödl (liver dumpling)" = NOT an vegetarian!

That has NOTHING to do what I insist on .. Wikipedia's several OWN articles dispute Hitler was a vegetarian ... may be you should delete all that info from those pages then ..?

I didnt say 'delete him entirely' from the page; I wrote he should be on the disputed list. Your reply is inappropriate. So what is journalistic about vivisectors writing on pages on vivisection then? Advertisements for their own dangerous pseudo-scientific 'work'. But yes, I know of Dutch wikipedians also that repeat stuff in wiki articles that is NOT true but was still written by a journalist & "thus we can cite/reference them" .. that is NOT what Wikipedia was intended for! 83.232.236.169 (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Hitler is only disputed by those peddling an agenda. It would be "embarrassing" if Wikpedia started to succumb to it in the face of the compelling historical evidence to the contrary. Hitler himself identified as vegetarian and that seems to be sufficient if you are a famous scientist or a pop star, but strangely not if you are a mass murderer. If someone slips a bit of animal broth into your meals without your knowledge that does not invalidate your credentials as a vegetarian. I am sure many vegetarians have unwittingly eaten cheese containing rennet and drunk beer containing isinglass etc. As detailed at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism:
  • Traudl Junge, who became Hitler's secretary in 1942, reported that he "always avoided meat" but that his Austrian cook Kruemel sometimes added a little animal broth or fat to his meals. "Mostly the Fuehrer would notice the attempt at deception, would get very annoyed and then get tummy ache," Junge said. "At the end he would only let Kruemel cook him clear soup and mashed potato."
  • Margot Wölk, who became his unwilling food taster in 1942, stated that all the food she tested for Hitler was vegetarian, and she recalled no meat or fish.
  • On 12 January 1942, he said, "The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat."
All sourced to reputable sources. It looks open and shut to me. Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually no, 'non-existing wikipedian' Betty Logan with no but only a red page yourself .. I have spoken to you before about Hitler's eating animals and you kept on going about agendas; YOU are the one with an agenda on Hitler being a vegetarian! You are writing YOUR opinion here which is not 'wiki'; on the wiki page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism it is disputed that he was a vegetarian, WITH sources - so HOW can it be that another wiki page does NOT recognise the sources that are recognised there!? It makes no sense & thus you make no sense above. 2 wiki pages on the same subject say something different. YOU have an agenda on this subject & thus by wiki-law you should not even be editing this page, right? You cannot deny that Hitler's vegetarianism is being disputerd WIDEly: thus he can NOT be on the vegetarians list of UNdisputed ones!
I am not talking about a little broth that his cook slipped into his meals. When Hitler CHOSE his liver dumplings & fried pigeons to eat, and when he CHOSE to have his last meal WITH meat, NOONE slipped it onto his plate withOUT him knowing! Whe you CHOOSE to eat an animal corpse you choose to NOT be vegetarian: that is nothing UNintentional.
So, either THIS wiki page in unreliable; OR the other page is ..
So, the only thing I am stating is that Hitler should be on the Disputed list. His vegetarianism is being DISPUTED by one of your own pages! -With MORE than 1 reference on that page!
Moreover, when yr docters tell you to eat vegetarian for your healthg (& you then don't) you are NOT a vegetarian .. again: someone who abuses children canNOT say they are nice to children - believe me on that coz I was subjected to it when I was a child.
when we look at older Edits, some of the referenced materials have simply been edited way - by people with an agendfa on this subject - mainly you, if I may refer to the EditHistory of both of these pages. Long time wikipedians have even stopped being active on Wikipedia because of your edits on it! You should STOP yr agenda on this subjec right here.

83.232.236.169 (talk) 08:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

This is becoming incredibly tedious now. The tactic is always the same with you people: produce some story of Hitler eating meat prior to WW2 during his transitional period and pass it off as "proof" of his non-vegetarianism. Should we strike off Paul M<cCartney and everyone else who wasn't vegetarian from birth? The fact remains that the people who had intimate knowledge of his diet from 1942 (when he actively identified as vegetarian) state he adhered to a vegetarain diet. Both his private secretary and his food taster state he was vegetarian at this point. If they both said the opposite he wouldn't be on the list. If they contradicted each other then he would be in the "disputed" section. But they are consistent on the fact he was vegetarian at this point of his life. I suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and come to terms with the fact that Wikipedia does not go in for historical revisionism. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on List of vegetarians. 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) 18:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Tibet

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

More of a general question, but why does it say Tibet for the Dalai Lama? What's the protocol for determining which country they belong to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingOn (talk • contribs) 03:12, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hitler

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Adolf Hitler had several favourite meat dishes - stating that he was a vegetarian is Goebbels 3rd Reich Propaganda 77.168.222.218 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

It was confirmed in 2013 that Hitler was indeed vegetarian. Margot Wölk who was forced to become a food taster for Hitler to ensure his food hadn't been poisoned confirmed that all the meals she tested were vegetarian. I am sure Hitler did have his favorite meat dishes, as most people do before they become vegetarian, but the only meat he was eating as of 1937 was liver dumplings, according to Ilse Hess and by 1941 Hitler was completely vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of vegetarians. 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) 13:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Category: Vegetarians

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Not sure where this discussion should go. I do remember once seeing the category for vegetarians was removed, but I think the rationale was weak. I propose re-launching it. I'll continue to search for other places to garner some debate and consensus on this. Rayman60 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Update - it has been reinstated as per the bold directive. Weigh in with your thoughts here. Rayman60 (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of vegetarians. 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) 08:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hitler as a disputed vegetarian

Latest comment: 6 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

Betty I don't claim Hitler was not a vegetarian but that it is under dispute. And because 90% of his life he probably was not and only in the last 3 years he probably tried to be - it us clearly in dispute weather you can call him a vegetarian. It's fine by me to add any evidence to the reference, as long as you stand a NPOV. Therefore I request you wont try undo the last edits and force your way on a well disputed issue. I thank you and also tip the hat for your snooker contributions. Mateo (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not under dispute. As documented at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism there are historical accounts of him eating meat up to 1937, and as such these reports have been used in the past to challenge the notion he was vegetarian, but these challenges have been well and truly debunked now. In 2013 his food taster at the Wolf's Lair came forward and confirmed that all the food she tested was vegetarian. In addition, in 2017 an analysis of the tartar on his teeth revealed no traces of meat fiber. We now have have witness testimony corroborating the fact he was vegetarian from at least 1942, and that is backed up by scientific evidence. This is a list of vegetarians and Hitler belongs on it, not as a disputed member but as an authentic vegetarian. It does not matter if he was only vegetarian for the final four years of his life: there is no minimum time limit for list additions. Some people get added to this list after just becoming vegetarian, and therefore there are currently people on the list who have been vegetarian less than four years. In some cases it is impossible to know how long they have been vegetarian. Nobody is born vegetarian, they become vegetarian through parental indoctrination or choice. It is not acceptable to use outdated reports to push a vegetarian agenda on this list. Hitler qualifies under the same rules we apply to other list members so he should not be moved to the disputed section. Betty Logan (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You are wrong. This is not just a list vegetarians, but a list of vegetarians and disputed cases. And Hitler is the most famous disputed case. As my accurate edit has shown before it was unrightfully reverted, the food taster also added that Hitler did eat animal parts (not only products) after 1942, specifically broth. So if anything, this testimony shows that Hitler was not a vegetarian, but it clearly shows it's in dispute. A test of meat fiber does not show all the remains that can be traced from a non-vegetarian diet, so it is very a weak evidence and not enough to solve a very long and bitter dispute. But the most important argument for Hitler being disputed is that the amount of time a person has devoted to a vegetarian diet and his or hers strictness is of prime concern when trying to argue that someone is a vegetarian. That is exactly why Albert Einstein is on that list as well. He was probably a vegetarian in the last year of his life but could not avoid animal parts due to health reasons. You may argue that he should be on the vegetarians list, but it is under dispute as well. I Also resent you accusations regarding my motivation of this edit. During the years you made countless revisions that show exactly who has an agenda on this matter. But unlike many advocates of vegetarianism I do not wish to argue that Hitler was not a vegetarians but do urge you to accepts the fact that his definition as such is under dispute. Mateo (talk) 12:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Hitler WAS disputed as of 2013. In 2013 Margot Woelk (Hitler's food-taster from 1942) confirmed that all the food she tested was vegetarian, and a forensic analysis of his teeth in 2017 by French scientists found no traces of meat fiber in the tartar on his teeth. We now have scientific evidence that Hitler did not eat meat in the final few months of his life, and witness testimony from a woman forced to be his food-taster and who was at immense risk of being poisoned that he was vegetarian from 1942. Up until 2013 I was more than happy for Hitler to be in the "disputed" section, but since then the facts that have come to light mean it is indisputable that Hitler was vegetarian at the end of his life, and my support for moving him out of the "disputed" section (which was actually undertaken by Dead Mary is the proper response to new evidence. Using outdated sources as you are doing to push a position that has since been proven to be factually wrong is POV pushing, agenda driven, and dishonest! Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Betty Logan you did not address any of the facts i put froth regarding those two new developments. Woelk testimony is actually prove of the dispute, as Hitler probably did ate broth even after 1942. The 2017 exam do not show trace of all animal parts - the abstention of is the core part of vegetarianism - and even if it was it's only evidence for a couple of months before death. So no way near proof that can resolve this dispute. Now before we continue i request you act civil and stop accusing and smearing. This makes it harder to resolve this issue and reach an agreement.Mateo (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
You haven't put forward any facts. Any objective person who is not immune to reason and evidence can see that Woelk's testimony backed up by the forensic evidence from last year conclude the dispute in favor of Hitler being vegetarian. Nobody has challenged this new evidence, except you, using books written prior to 2013, and one of them from 1973! Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes i have. Hitler ate meat until 1938 and probably ate Broth well after 1942, although disliking it. In addition he was also forced to eat animal parts for health reasons up until his end. These testimonial evidence came from Hitler's secretary and his dietitian. Do any have evidence that not only contradict but actually disprove these fact? If not then Hitler's definition as a vegetarian is clearly still under dispute. Just like it's dishonest by activists to remove him from this article, acting for the claim that the dispute is a done deal is not so far from it. Because of the sensitivity of the matter I sincerely request you to put leave it in dispute, at least until it's clear that Hitler was or was not a vegetarian. Mateo (talk) 13:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
The fact that Hitler ate meat up to 1937 has no bearing on the discussion. That is not under dispute. Most people on this list ate meat at some point in their life. Should we chuck off Paul and Linda McCartney because they weren't lifelong vegetarians? The fact remains that Hitler became vegetarian by the end of his life. And even if Hitler's chef did occasionally slip some animal broth into Hitler's meals against without Hitler's knowledge and against his express wishes (as outlined at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism) that does not mean he ceased being vegetarian! Vegetarian products are sometimes contaminated by meat lines in food production but that does not mean that the vegetarians who consume them suddenly stop being vegetarian. You are creating a double standard especially for Hitler. Your editing is not neutral! Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
"Should we chuck off Paul and Linda McCartney because they weren't lifelong vegetarians?". No, but if they occasionally eat parts of animals - due to ideological or health reasons - then of course they should not be in the same list as definite vegetarians. I return to Albert Einstein case, that expressed support not only to vegetarian but for a vegan diet but probably practiced it just a short amount of time and could not endure due to health reasons. Quite funny addressing Hitler and Einstein in the same category, but it seems this is the case.Mateo (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Former/Disputed Sections

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The lede currently has "In the cases where a person's vegetarian status is disputed or they no longer adhere to a vegetarian diet, this is noted next to their entry as disputed or former." Perhaps I'm missing something, but as far as I can tell, this has long since been abandoned in favour of having separate "Former" and "Disputed" sections. We should probably take that out of the lede, or merge the sections back into the list with addition of "disputed" and "former" notes. --tronvillain (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I've updated the wording to reflect the current structure of the article. If editors want to review the article structure more closely I am happy to take part in that although it would probably be best left until after the RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC about Hitler being a vegetarian

Latest comment: 6 years ago64 comments17 people in discussion
VEGETARIAN
There is consensus to add Adolf Hitler to the vegetarian section of the list. Most editors believe that reliable sources adequately demonstrate that Hitler fits in this classification, because he "adhered to a vegetarian diet at some point during their life", as explained in the lead section of the article. — Newslinger talk 10:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An editor keeps moving the Hitler entry from the main list to the "disputed vegetarians" section, typified by this edit. I took the dispute to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Disputing Hitler's vegetarianism, but there was only a single impartial response and the other party does not believe this constitutes a consensus. Therefore I have started this RFC to establish whether Hitler be added to disputed vegetarian section or remain in the vegetarian section? Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Background

Main article: Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism

The background to the "Was Hitler vegetarian?" debate is convoluted, but I will try to outline the issue as best as I can:

  • pre-WW2: Hitler was known to eat meat. Dione Lucas, a chef at a restaurant Hitler patronised before the war, stated that stuffed squab was Hitler's favourite dish. Nobody has ever disputed that Hitler did indeed consume meat.
  • 1937: Ilse Hess commented that Hitler had ceased eating all meat by 1937 except for liver dumplings. Nobody disputes that Hitler did indeed dramatically reduce his meat intake.
  • 1942: In January 1942, Hitler declares himself to be vegetarian. Nobody disputes the authenticity of this declaration, but they do dispute what it actually meant i.e. could Hitler have adopted a semi-vegetarian diet (a diet that reduces its meat component but is still not fully vegetarian), or did he become a full vegetarian?
  • Further facts: Traudl Junge (Hitler's personal secretary from 1942 onwards) commented that Hitler ""always avoided meat"" but his chef would occasionally slip animal broth into Hitler's soup without Hitler's knowledge. Hitler's doctor also administered a series of injections which contained animal derivatives. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Disputed

For a long while it has been disputed whether Hitler ever was a vegetarian or not. The authenticity of Hitler's vegetarianism was first questioned by Robert Payne (author) in his biography The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler (1973). The vegetarian advocacy author Rynn Berry referenced multiple accounts of Hitler eating meat before the war in his book Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover (2004). Mainstream historians have been more circumspect on the issue, maintaining that Hitler practiced some form of vegetarianism. Given the hotly contested viewpoints, until 2013 Hitler was included in the "disputed" section of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent developments

There have been two major developments in the last five years:

Wolk's testimony more or less closed the debate with even vegetarian advocacy groups conceding that Hitler was vegetarian. Following Wolk's testimony we moved Hitler to the main vegetarian list where he has been for the last five years. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Survey

  1. Wolk's testimony and the results of the forensic investigation are very compelling and end this debate IMO. Even if Wolk forgot the odd wurst, the lack of any trace of meat in the tartar on his teeth completely confirms her testimony. This is testimony from somebody with an intimate knowledge of what Hitler ate corroborated by forensic evidence. If we are not going to accept this as evidence then what would we accept?
  2. While you could argue that Hitler consumed animal broth occasionally due to his chef's deception, this in itself does not revoke somebody's vegetarian credentials. Vegetarianism is a dietary choice. Vegetarian products are sometimes contaminated by meat lines during production, but when such incidents occur this does not make the thousands of vegetarians who consume these products suddenly not vegetarian. When I became vegetarian many years ago I did not realize that some cheeses were not vegetarian, but I don't consider myself not vegetarian for that period.
  3. Hitler was given injections, some of which contained animal components. It is not clear if Hitler was aware of what they contained but I don't consider it relevant. Hitler was a vegetarian, not a vegan, and even vegans sometimes make exceptions for medication.
  4. Most challenges to the view of Hitler being a vegetarian draw on accounts of him eating meat prior to the war. This is significant because Hitler only became a full vegetarian some time between 1938 and 1941.
  5. New facts change the nature of the dispute per WP:AGE MATTERS. The Hitler entry was moved back to the "disputed" section using a source from 1973. This is disingenuous IMO because it ignores the new evidence. To my knowledge there have been no serious challenges to either Wolk or the findings of the forensic examination.
  6. That fact that Hitler wasn't vegetarian his whole life isn't relevant. Most vegetarians aren't born into the vegetarian lifestyle and make that choice down the line. Most people included on this list haven't been vegetarian their whole lives, and some have been vegetarian even less time that Hitler. There shouldn't be a higher inclusion threshold for Hitler.
Despite claims to the contrary I believe I have been very objective in regard to this issue. Hitler has always been a target on this page, and up until 2013 I repeatedly restored the entry to the "disputed" section, because that is where I honestly believed he should be given the evidence at the time. Since 2013, however, I have favored full inclusion because the evidence for Hitler's vegetarianism has built up to an undeniable level. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Disputed Vegetarian. I do not argue Hitler was not Vegetarian, but that it's clear fact that there is a dispute on the matter, where many argue that he was not.
  1. There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is. One of his strongest claims were that it is impossible to view Hitler as a vegetarian when he acted against organizations promoting vegetarian diet.
  2. The most prominent biographer of Hitler that dealt with the dictator's relationship with vegetarianism agrees with that claim. Robert Payne argues the whole "Hitler is vegetarian" argument was a propaganda tool to promote a compassionate image to the ruthless furer. Another biographer of Hitler, Thomas Fuchs, agrees he can't be considered a vegetarian.
  3. It is also important to note that we are discussing what should be defined as "a vegetarian above all dispute". Albert Einstein is on the disputed list although he probably did adhered a vegetarian diet and practice it for some time in his life. But it was for a short period time in his life, and was inconsistent due to health reasons. The same can be argued regarding the case in front of us.
  4. It is undisputed that Hitler was not a vegetarian for most of his adult like, and up until the start of the second world war. According to multiple sources he ate meat until 1938, and probably ate Broth and meat fat well after 1942, although disliking it. In addition he was also forced to eat animal parts for health reasons up until his end. These testimonial evidence came from Hitler's secretary and his dietitian.
  5. While it's undisputed that one can't be vegetarian and eat broth and meat fat the other party claims Hitler ate it against his will. They even go on saying his cook "slipped" the fat to his food without him knowing or against his dictation. Remembering we are discussing the most ruthless dictator who ever lived, this is an absurd argument. If he ate the meat fat he is not a vegetarian. But since we rely here on collaborators and anecdotal testimony it seems best to view it as part of a dispute.
  6. The tester testimony should be viewed the same way. Relying on a memory of a women in her 90's regarding details of events that took place 70 years ago, in a world war situation, when this person is either held captive (and can't know what is being put in her food) or collaborating with the nazis, should not be the way to go about settling a much discussed dispute. For example, she says there was no meat but that she does not remember weather there was fish. here's an example of an elaborated opinion that looks unbiased, considers the tester's testimony and still concludes Hitler was probably not a vegetarian. Again this shows the dispute is on going.
  7. The party arguing that there is not dispute regarding Hitler's eating habits should put forth evidences that not only contradict but actually disprove the reasonable possibility that Hitler's diet included either broth, meat fat or even fish. If not then Hitler's definition as a vegetarian is clearly still under dispute.
  8. Finally, it's important to set the record straight regarding the history of this dispute. So up until 2013 there were many cases of people moving the dictator off the list altogether, arguing Hitler was not a vegetarian, and others restoring him to the disputed section. The first time i found someone moved the dictator from the disputed was [in june 2013]. The edit summery claimed that all the "major biographies" say he is. As pointed above, at least two prominent biographers of Hitler that dealt with this matter actually claims the opposite.
  9. Secondly, it never reached consensus. In 2014 alone this edit was reverted at least 5 tims. [[3]] [4] [[5]] [[6]]. The last one added some sources and created a large debate on the matter, and these cases continued [[7]] over the years.
  10. So unlike the other parties representation of events, the current situation of the article relies on an inaccurate fact, never got to a consensus and was kept that way while being disputed in the biographies of Hitler and consistently in Wikipedia. It is the other party that never established consensus on the matter, and kept reverting this article, thus creating a quasi-status-quo.
  11. Thus i ask to keep Hitler's case in it's original status quo, as the sum of evidence clearly shows Hitler's vegetarian diet and practice is heavily disputed.
  12. Finally I would like to add that I welcome this debate and state that I will accept any outcome, so long as the other party would do the same.

With much respect to the Wikipedia process,

12:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)

Actually the recent piece updated link, which you claim " concludes Hitler was probably not a vegetarian" actually concludes "In the end, it doesn’t matter whether Hitler was a vegetarian. But, if you really want to know, he wasn’t a very good one". Not a very good vegetarian = was a vegetarian. The piece is of course written by a non-historian vegetarian complaining about AH being linked to vegetarianism! Hardly an authorative source. Atheists say AH wasn't an atheist, Austrians that he wasn't Austrian and there are probably dog-lovers who say AH gives them a bad name! Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Seems to me it is disputed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven, Hitler's vegetarianism is "disputed" in the same way that whether the Holocaust happened or whether vaccines cause autism is "disputed", and thus WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT should be followed here.
The argument "One of his strongest claims were that it is impossible to view Hitler as a vegetarian when he acted against organizations promoting vegetarian diet" is bogus. "Vegetarian" refers to what you eat, not to which organizations you support/oppose. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Some of Mateo's claims are absurd and are based mostly on his own opinions. Hitler disbanded vegetarian organizations for the same reasons he disbanded film societies i.e. he opposed organizations except Nazi ones. Incidentally, he intended on transitioning the whole of Germany after the war so there was very little need for vegetarian societies in Nazi Germany anyway. Also, the assertion that he "ate animal parts for health reasons" is not backed up by any sources and is untrue, as far as factual record goes. Hitler's medications were not digested but injected, and his medical record is available for all to see: [8]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I would also dispute the claim "There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is." See [ https://slate.com/human-interest/2004/02/was-hitler-a-vegetarian.html ] to see what kind of "authority" Rynn Berry is. Also, the book is over ten years old, and there has been significant new evidence in the last few years. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
He also claims academic sources (not just one) for the claim, I can agree with some and not all of his points.
Slatersteven (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We see how much hostility is there with one or two users that argue there is no dispute regarding Hitler's vegetarianism. I guess an authority on vegetarians is not a vegetarian who writes about vegetarianism all his life, and has written a whole book about this issue. He knows nothing about the issue, compered to some random guy. It's also interesting that what was a Wikipedia status quo in 2013 and should have stayed that way, is all of a sudden being compered to Holocaust denial or flat-earth claims.
From this point the level of debate can quickly deteriorate and it's impossible to have a discussion. It also does not help to say you dont want express an opinion, erase it and then disrespect the separation between the survey section and the discussion.
So i just turn to point out that Hitler's physician, Theodor Morell, administered many medications that contained animal parts such as cardiac muscle, adrenal gland, liver, placenta, and extracts containing seminal vesicles and prostate. If this is so, he can't be defined as a vegetarian. But for me this is still disputed. 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Sorry whilst I agree there may be some dispute here I think the above is frankly wrong. You do not stop being a vegetarian just because you unwittingly take a animal based product (if that were the case I wonder how many on our list would fail, Gandhi I hear for one). A Vewgan and a Vegetarian (also) are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
We are not talking about animal based product (like milk and eggs), but products that use animal body-parts (the consumption of preventing a person being vegetarian). Also, according to his secretary and dietitian broth and bone marrow were part of his diet. I think it's ludicrous to argue someone disobeyed his order and made him something un-vegetarian when he clearly asks for a vegetarian diet. It's quite reasonable he ate the broth and bone morrow out of habit, not really caring for his "vegetarian diet".
  • Compromise - reorganize table (combine disputed section to main list, add notes column). Having Wikipedians decide "who is a vegetarian" (per multiple conflicting definitions of such, and evaluating claims of evidence of such) is too complex and dispute prone - as well as quite WP:ORish (and I refer to both Betty Logan's and Mateo's arguments in their !votes above). What we should be using, are (good and recent) WP:RSes saying "X was a vegetarian" and not make various arguments on the merits of the claims ourselves - inclusion should be based on the existence of such sources (stating outright that "X was/is a vegetarian"). Therefore, I propose to combine "Disputed vegetarians" with "Vegetarians"/"Former vegetarians" (as the case may be). Furthermore, I propose that we add a notes column where disputations or other notes regarding vegetarian aspects of the listed subject could be discussed briefly. In the case of Hitler, this note should merely refer the reader to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism and possibly mention there is a minority view that disputes some aspects of this (possibly - as it seems this is presently missing from Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism). Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I will support this change if the article name's would be "self described vegetarians" or even if it includes such a definition at the top of the list. Otherwise this proposal would just make it even more binary then it is, which means less accuracy for the readers. 17:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Self description is (mostly) irrelevant - for inclusion criteria we should rely on what RSes say on the subject. If we have suffcient sourcing stating X is vegeterian - so should include. Any caveats - in the notes.Icewhiz (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This could have been a solution if we had sufficient sources only going in one way. But here you have most of the older but more thorough resources (historians and writers) saying he was not a vegetarian and newer testimonies and the tartar exam saying that we was. So this brings us back to square one: What to do with this dispute? You know my answer... 19:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian - The criteria for this article states: This is a list of notable people who have adhered to a vegetarian diet at some point during their life (emphasis mine) and the article Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says - Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler—at least during the war—followed a vegetarian diet. In my view, at least during the war - would be some point during his life, so he would satisfy the criteria defined at this article. I'd suggest slapping a note on his entry that says at least during the war he followed a vegetarian diet (also agree there should be a notes column). Isaidnoway (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I have showed 2 historians, biographers of Hitler, that argue he can't be defined as a vegetarian: Payne and Fuchs. Both of them did not settled for a comment on the issue but actually expressed a full opinion on the matter. On the other side of the debate i know that ian kershow, who is a very prominent biographer of Hitler, did support him being defined as a vegetarian. But if my memory is correct he didn't deal with this issue in more then a sentence or two. Im curious how did you reach the conclusion that "Today, it is acknowledged by historians that Hitler—at least during the war—followed a vegetarian diet."?
p.s. I normally do not comment in the survey section out of respect to the integrity of the opinion, but since this respect has been breached by another user, and in a very aggressive manner, it became impossible to debate in the discussion alone. So with apology.
13:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)Mateo (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I was quoting from the article - Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. I read your comment and your sources, I read Betty's comment and their sources, I also did my own research, like I do at all RfC's that I comment at. Fuchs, Payne and Berry all make compelling arguments, but they were all published well before the forensic testing on his teeth was done, so that must be taken into account when considering their arguments and conclusions. As far as I'm concerned, you can not ignore the forensic testing and their conclusions. In my opinion, prior to the war, Hitler ate meat, but during the war he was a vegetarian. So based on the criteria for inclusion for a vegetarian in this article, at some point in Hitler's life he followed a vegetarian diet, and in my view that is not disputed. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
I totally agree with you. My personal believe is that Hitler tried to follow a vegetarian diet between 42 and 45, and adhered it even before that. But you see, this is not a "was he-was he not" debate. This is a "is it disputed debate". I also agree with you that there are compelling arguments for the side saying he can't be defined as a vegetarian. Actually the historians that dealt with Hitler's diet conclude that he is not. So it's disputed. The Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism article builds it's narrative almost entirely from anecdotal evidence and should be considered original research. The forensic exam didn't find meat fiber in the tartar. That means that Hitler didn't eat meat fiber in the last couple of months of his life. This doesn't contradict the testimony of his secretary and dietitian, reporting he ate broth/meat fat/bone morrow. So it's A. Plausible that Hitler didn't follow a vegetarian diet, even if he abstained from meat fiber. B. This is compatible with the biographers saying the argument that he is a vegetarian was a nazi propaganda tool. Mateo (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
It's disputed in your view, not mine, according to the loosely defined criteria for this article. I'm just one man giving one opinion in this RfC. Whatever the outcome is, I am totally cool with WP:CONSENSUS. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
That's fine, but i do think you should consider changing your mind. You know, i also thought the definition is loose, but it's quite strict. For me, i misunderstood the meaning of "adhering" and thought it meant something like "support". But actually adhering means to stick fast to something, without deviation. This means that if a person does eat broth/meat fat/bone morrow or fish once in while - he is not adhering. Mateo (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian The arguments that he was not are weak, WP:OR-ish and fringe-y. That he might not meet every modern vegetarian's definition and that he may have 'lapsed' occassionally or inadvertently ingested, or been injected with animal products or derivatives, is probably true to a greater or lesser extent for almost everyone on the list, but does not detract from the fact that he claimed to be, and contemporaries and historians accepted his claim. The history of his vegetarianism, (his later years) can go in a footnote. Comment the whole 'disputed section is fairly valueless when it does not record the nature of the dispute(s) - is this people who say they are/were, but others dispute their sincerity ? If so, that's bit like a list of 'disputed Catholics', they say they are but others say they are not very good ones! Pincrete (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
If it is disputed that other people on the list adhered to a vegetarian diet, by biographers and others who wrote books on the matter, then they should not be on the list as well. It's very simple and as clear as day. Do you know of any testimony of broth/meat fat/bone morrow being part of the diet of Gandhi, Tolstoy or Paul McCartney? Of course you don't. It also baffles me how can you say Hitler "may have 'lapsed' occassionally" and in one breath consider him a person who "adhered to a vegetarian diet" - as the definition require? Explain it to me, please. Mateo (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
The definition - or degree of strictness of what constitutes a vegetarian, varies and to an extent is dependent on the person's reasons (moral or otherwise). Involuntary ingestion would never preclude someone. If the people of the time and historians consider someone to have been vegetarian - it isn't up to us to ratify or question that verdict. The Pope may not fit everyone's definition of a good Catholic - does that mean he isn't one? Pincrete (talk) 05:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm willing to be pragmatic and agree that involuntary ingestion would never preclude someone from this list, but would you agree that eating fat meat would? I have shown that "people of the time" testified that Hitler ate broth, meat fat and bone morrow, in addition to consuming animal parts due to his medical status. I'm also the only one thus far that named historians that dealt with this matter. Why wont you address that? Mateo (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
I read the Slate article and none of the scholars interviewed (John Lukacs and Daniel Goldhagen) disputed Berry's main argument, which is the supposed semi-vegetarianism of Hitler. Rather, they and the journalist argued the need to write a book solely on that subject and the ethical concerns of Hitler. Ojo del tigre (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
I didn't imply that Slate disputed Berry or anything else about Berry's argument. What I said was that the specific claim above ("There is a book dedicated to show that Hitler was not a vegetarian, written by Rynn Berry who is considered an authority on what vegetarianism is") is false. Rynn Berry is considered a vegetarian advocacy author. It's fine to present Berry's arguments (while noting that there exists over ten years worth of new evidence since he wrote his book) but wrong to call him an authority on what vegetarianism is. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Guy Macon This is the second time you compared your counterparts to supporters of Holocaust denial. I suggest you apologize and revert your position so it will be possible to settle it with the principle of Wikipedia:Civility. Mateo (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Request denied. I never compared my "counterparts" with anything. I compared the sources that say Hitler was not a vegetarian with the sources that say that vaccines cause autism and the sources that claim the Holocaust never happened. In all three cases, a WP:FRINGE view is disputing the mainstream opinion of experts, and we should treat the fringe view as the fringe view that it is.
"It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish. Of course I was afraid. If it had been poisoned I would not be here today. We were forced to eat it, we had no choice." --Margot Woelk, food taster for Adolph Hitler.
--Guy Macon (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Woelk is not an expert, and considering i'm the only one in this discussion that actually named three experts, this comment just shows how wrong and rude it is to compare the disputed position, which is basically the Wikipedia status quo in this article, to Holocaust denial. I actually think your kind of rhetoric has no place in Wikipedia. Mateo (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
If you think that the food taster for Adolph Hitler is not an authority for what Adolph Hitler ate, you have no business editing an encyclopedia. WP:CIR. If you don't like my comments, file a report at WP:ANI. I have rejected your complaints and they are off topic here. WP:STICK. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Holocaust denial is not a perfect analogy because the argument that it never happened have never held any validity to begin with, unlike the argument that Hitler was not a vegetarian. However, I agree with Guy that there is a strong parallel because this persistent challenge to Woelk's testimony in the context of other corroborating witness accounts covering the same period along with the forensic evidence implies that we don't believe a victim of Hitler—a woman who was held hostage and lived in daily fear of being poisoned. She has no incentive to lie about this, and as yet no credible historian that I know of has challenged her account. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian: The "Disputed Vegetarian" inclusion criterion appears to be "This list includes only those for whom there is a legitimate dispute of the fact and omits those merely rumored of being a vegetarian, regardless of how widely such rumor is spread" and there does not appear to be a legitimate dispute of the fact that he was accurately described as vegetarian later in life. This isn't "list of lifelong vegetarians." Berry appears to bordering on fringe. The Poppy piece mentions a period before the war, which is irrelevant. --tronvillain (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've seen Payne come up in this context mentioning a love of sausages, but that ignores that the sections that actually talks about him eating sausages are in 1913 and 1924, while other sections about later life have "His meal consisted of Kaiserschmarren, a Viennese pancake of imperial grandeur liberally sprinked with sugar and raisins and drowned in sweet sauces. This was his vegetarian meal; the others were provided with more normal fare." and "it was understood Hitler would take his usual vegetarian meal." It takes a lot of motivated reasoning to get "not a vegetarian" from that text. --tronvillain (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian The preponderance of sources seem to suggest that Hitler was indeed a vegetarian for a substantial period of time. Due to the skeletal teeth analysis, we probably have better evidence for Hitler's vegetarianism than for any other vegetarian who ever lived. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 04:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian Per the sources used (at Hitler and Vegetarianism, recent evidence etc) there is really no credible dispute that at the end of his life, and for more than a trivial amount of time, he was a dedicated and committed vegetarian. So he goes in the Vegetarian section of the list. This is just another in a long line of "Well Hitler wasnt really *insert group here*" arguments in order to distance him from *insert group here*. If anyone really thinks Hitler wasnt a vegetarian, take the argument to the dedicated article on the subject and try and get consensus there to dispute it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I was wondering why the dog lovers never showed up to dispute Hitler being a dog lover, but then I realized that they were too busy having fun with their dogs to bother. Who's a good dog? You're a good dog! Yes you are! Yes you are! --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian No serious scholarly debate about his vegetarianism during WWII has so far been presented. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Vegetarian (Summoned by bot) Sufficient reliable sources stating so. (As an aside, I wonder why there is a "Disputed vegetarians" list at all. Is it completely incontrovertible that the many ancient figures included in the "Vegetarians" table were vegetarians? A reworking of the inclusion criteria or a division of the list may be useful.) Hrodvarsson (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong Place

This list should follow whatever Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says, and anyone who wishes to claim that Hitler's vegetarianism is disputed should attempt to get a consensus to change that article, only changing this one to disputed after Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism says that it is disputed. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Icewhiz i thank you for going to the heart of the matter. I believe that we should include a person on the list in regards to the total sum of data that is out there on his case. If we have only his own testimony then we assume good faith. But if it is disputed, and in Hitler's case it is so by many, then it should go to the disputed section. The core of this argument is that Wikipedia is not here to settle ideological debates and vote on "who won". This creates a very bad editing culture, and unfortunately it happened here. It's much better and less time consuming to present a full picture of evidence to the reader, and classify it as accurately as possible. Since there is a dispute regarding Hitler and there is a list of disputed case, it is actually a simple matter to judge what classification is more accurate. 12:17, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
This article is from 2011 before both recent developments. This source presents Dione Lucas as evidence for Hitler's non-vegetarianism. As I discuss above, Dione Lucas was a chef at a restaurant patronised before the war, and before he turned vegetarian in the 1938–1941 period. Your other source discusses medications that Hitler took, not his diet. Vegetarianism is a diet, and only veganism (which bans using animal by-products) precludes animal derived medications. Many vegetarians will take flu-tablets for example, which contain gelatin. All of these three sources base their arguments on old evidence. If we were basing Hitler's classification on this evidence I agree that "disputed" would be the correct classification, but I now believe this arguments have been superceded. Hitler's food taster (from 1942 until his death) came forward in 2013 and testified that Hitler was a vegetarian during her tenure. Forensic examination from 2017 and published earlier this year found no traces of meat in the tartar on his teeth. I believe the new evidence of the past five years finishes the debate. Nobody to my knowledge has published any argument that challenges the food-taster's testimony or the forensic findings. Postulations based on what Hitler ate before the war shouldn't be given equal consideration to the testimony of somebody with intimate knowledge of his diet and forensic evidence. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
not helpful - who edited what first and how the content dispute arose is not conductive to the discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your protection of the transfer to the undisputed list started well before these new developments, as i have shown above, so you can't cling to them as the reason for you actions. They also anecdotal, can be detailed in a paragraph, and can be equally measured to A whole book dedicated to show the other side. They clearly do not settle the dispute, which is ongoing. 12:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mateo (talk • contribs)
Please don't lie. The edit history of the article is available for all to see and here is a diff showing me restoring Hitler to the "disputed" section after another editor moved him to the main section. That was in June 2013, before I became aware of the food-taster's testimony, published in February 2013. After I became aware of the food-taster's testimony I conceded that he belonged in the "main" list. And for the record, forensic evidence is not "anecdotal". Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It's evident that the transfer to the undisputed list was done in June 2013 and since kept so mainly by you. Now you became aware of the transfer in the same month and did not restore it, although not mentioning the food taster until 2014. This was not part of your logic. You just believe this dispute should be settled, when it is apparent it is not settled. Now if im not accurate in any detail feel free to correct me. I'm not against you and generally appreciate your contribution to this project. So can you please stop with the smearing that is taking control over your keyboard whenever someone disputes that Hitler can be defined as a vegetarian? Thank you very much. 13:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I have two questions - 1. How do we define vegetarian for inclusion? 2. How do we define disputed? Is it enough for various advocates to dispute this? A dispute on the basic facts (e.g. some source (not aware of any recent ones) saying he did knowingly eat meat?)? A dispute (assuming (1) is not a closed definition by us and is based on, say, some sources saying he's vegetarian (as opposed to "ticking" various criteria)) on the definition of vegetarian? Icewhiz (talk) 13:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I will try to answer your questions as directly as possible:
i) "Vegetarian" is very simple to define. A vegetarian is simply somebody who chooses to not eat meat or fish. This is how the vegetarian society define it:

A vegetarian is someone who lives on a diet of grains, pulses, legumes, nuts, seeds, vegetables, fruits, fungi, algae, yeast and/or some other non-animal-based foods (e.g. salt) with, or without, dairy products, honey and/or eggs. A vegetarian does not eat foods that consist of, or have been produced with the aid of products consisting of or created from, any part of the body of a living or dead animal. This includes meat, poultry, fish, shellfish*, insects, by-products of slaughter** or any food made with processing aids created from these.

ii) As for what counts as a dispute, the "disputed" section was specifically created out of necessity to accommodate Hitler and others like him i.e. when there was insufficient evidence to catagorize a person one way or the other. It was necessary a few years ago because there were accounts that Hitler ate meat and accounts that he didn't! There simply wasn't enough evidence to call it either way. So yes, there has been a debate lasting 40 years since Payne published his Hitler biography, and plenty of sources to that effect, but it is my contention that the food-taster's testimony and the forensic analysis (which corroborate each other) definitively conclude the debate.
Mateo has relied on old sources as evidence of the debate (i.e. when there was a debate), but he has produced no reliable source that directly takes account of the food-taster's testimony and the forensic evidence. In short, no authority on Hitler or vegetarianism has so far challenged the new findings. Betty Logan (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Let's try to turn this on its head - I dispute the need for a disputed section - and I think that the conflict between yourself and Mateo arose from the binary choice here. How about we have one list, include based on WP:RSes saying an individual was vegetarian (skirting around the need to define ourselves), and add a notes column where disputes (if any, and possibly other relevant notes) around the vegetarian status could be detailed? E.g. for Hitler, I am sure that even you would agree that some Vegan/Vegetarian advocates have disputed this on various grounds - which could be summarized very briefly in the notes (and for Hitler a link to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism (currently missing in the list, present in an image of Hitler) would be useful in the notes). Icewhiz (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree that there are some people who will never accept that Hitler was vegetarian no matter how much evidence is provided. We see this mentality with creationists, climate change deniers and even flat-earthers, but do we really consider evolution "disputed" as a fact? This is an encyclopedia after all, and I find it a bit weird that forensic evidence isn't enough to establish Hitler's vegetarianism as a fact. If the forensics had found meat in the tartar I would have had no problem removing him completely. Incidentally, this article used to be a single list with notes (an approach I personally never had a problem with and actually regarded as a superior format—I find the current approach a bit WP:POINTy) but entries—usually Hitler—were regularly targeted for removal because some editors didn't think it should contain disputed entries. The "disputed" section was created to counter that and it was largely successful in stabilising the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the level of disruption/change would be lower if content disputes were limited to wording in a notes column. I also think that a disputed section is poor for some (possibly not so) hypothetical - e.g. say a 1940s person who generally followed a vegetarian diet but was known to consume, say, Jell-O or some other food with Gelatin. Such a person would not be a vegetarian per the definition you provided from the vegetarian society, but would probably be described as vegetarian in a multitude of sources. Pigeonholing such an individual to the disputed section as opposed to noting the dispute - seems a rather arbitrary and large change. For Hitler, a note probably would be "disputed by some X, see Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism" (X replaced by however we describe those who object). Icewhiz (talk) 14:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It not just Hitler, some modern scholars doubt Pythagoras was a true vegetarian, a number of others became vegetarian in latter life. I think (especially with many of the older examples) to have a really clear definition of who was a vegetarian. It might be best if we had "self declared" and "alleged" rather then what we have now. If someone did not say they are as vegetarian it is only someone esles opinion (often from blatantly advocacy sources that they were (or in the case of Hitler, that they were not).Slatersteven (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

  Comment: The 2017 analysis states: No muscular segment (compatible with meat) was identified after careful examination of the whole surfaces and sections [of Hitler's dental calculus fragments]. And at the end it concludes: The absence of muscular structures within the dental calculus fragments has to be confronted to the fact that Adolf Hitler is said to have been vegetarian (even if only two fragments were examined, and not the totality of the dental calculus deposits).[9] It only mentions muscular segments, but does that include bone marrow? I think that's the most important, and then broth and maybe animal fat. Ojo del tigre (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

You are not just taking the forensic evidence in isolation though. The testimony from the food-taster corroborates the analysis. You have somebody with intimate knowledge of Hitler's diet who said "there was no meat" and does not "remember any fish", and the forensic analysis as far as it is possible to establish these things backs that up. It is plainly obvious that Hitler was committed to a vegetarian diet by the end of his life, regardless of whether he inadvertently consumed some animal broth his chef slipped into his dinner. Let's take my own personal experience as an example. My mother often cooks my favorite vegetarian dish when I am visiting, and despite the recipe instructing her to use soy sauce I discovered she had been using Worcester sauce, which has anchovies as one of the ingredients. By this point I had been vegetarian for over 20 years, but by the logic presented by Mateo I had never been vegetarian at all! Being vegetarian is a dietary choice whereby you choose to fully omit animal parts from your diet, a choice that Hitler was exercising to the best of his knowledge during the Second World War. Betty Logan (talk) 01:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Betty, we are no debating a normal person trusting his mother but a dictator, who planed the most brutal holocaust to it's very last detail and was 100% aware the outcomes of his decisions. It's preposterous - let alone dangerous - to argue he "didn't know" or "she slipped it to his meal". You are basically saying it was possible for a mere cook to disobey Hitler's dictation, deceive him to eat something against his wishes. Just to demonstrate how ludicrous that is, I can guess you were upset to find out you ate a non-vegetarian dish for 20 years. Now imagine what would Hitler do to that miserable cook. In all seriousness, it remains plausible Hitler abstained from meat fiber but still ate Broth/Fat/Morrow out of habit. This makes him a non-vegetarian just like people who say they are vegetarian but eat fish. It is also possible he was not a keen vegetarian but acted as one one as part of a compassionate image. Although It's not certain it is plausible, and thus should remain under the disputed section. Mateo (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
"but a dictator, who planed the most brutal holocaust to it's very last detail". Actually there is not a single paper record, nor a single witness statement, showing AH even knew about the holocaust, let alone "planned (planed?) every detail of it". This is an elementary historical fact about AH and not knowing it advertises an astonishing ignorance of the basic facts about AH. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC) ps, in case this statement is misconstrued, I agree with most historians - that AH knew perfectly well about the holocaust and it happened because of his beliefs and wishes - but he kept a metaphorical million miles from actually planning or even knowing about the sordid facts about it. Pincrete (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess if one or two more users comes up on the undisputed side of the argument, i would be willing to withdraw my claim and revert the page myself to betty's version. But i wish to ask all users support this move - if Hitler diet in 42-45 did contain fat/broth/morrow, would you accept he was not a vegetarian? I remind you that even if we take the 95yo food tester testimony to be peach perfect, these are elements she didn't address and could not appear in the tartar exam. But we do have two testimonies that fat/broth/morrow were a regular part of Hitler's diet. Do you ignore them, or think a person can eat fat/broth/morrow and still be defined a vegetarian? Mateo (talk) 09:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No, because as far as I can tell, every credible source that mentions that says he wasn't eating them deliberately. Your argument that he must have known or that people would have been too scared of him to disobey in any way is the definition of original research. --tronvillain (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Common sense isn't an original research. How can "slip" something into the food of a murderous dictator and continue to work under him for years? How is this the basis for an argument that receive so much support? It boggles me, and I warn this conclusion can be an opening for future claims that Hitler was "unaware" of his surroundings in the last years of the war. Considering there was Nazi propaganda that used "hitler is vegetarian" to promote an image, I think if he ate any of these elements it seems his vegetarian diet was inflated in image and relaxed in realty. All in all, you still think it's best to just put him in the same category as people who defiantly are vegetarians? Mateo (talk) 13:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Dont be ridiculous. No one is going to argue that Hitler was unaware of his surroundings in the last years of the war. "I cant see how it could happen" absent any reliable sources is the very definition of original research and prohibited by policy. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:44, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Well you do understand though that the "undisputed" side argues that even though Hitler demanded a vegetarian diet, it was possible for the cook to disobey him and serve him non-vegetarian food? Do you further understand that by this logic he was unaware not only to the his diet but also to the level of obedience of his personal crew? It's not that "i can't see how could this happen", it's just seems like a very weak argument.
This explains why many of the above comments, including yours (no offense), do not argue on content but cling to arguments about the motives of this RfC. The insignificant percentage of vegetarians in the English speaking world makes it Much easier to base this debates on identity politics. Unfortunately this happens at the expense of accuracy in Wikipedia Mateo (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Closing the RfC

1. I have reverted my own edit to move Hitler to the undisputed list.

2. In my opinion this RfC should be considered a sufficient Wikipedia status quo on Hitler's vegetarianism, and there is no need to open a new debate on the matter at least until a new evidence/testimony/unbiased commentary (by a scholar or journalist) disputes this.

3. If there is any objection to close this RfC please state so.

4. A wider point: As the whole category of "disputed" was created for the case of Hitler, now that this dispute is over i think we should follow Icewhiz advice and combine it into one list of vegetarians, with disputed cases in a comment. I ask your opinion and tag Betty Logan for the matter. 

Mateo (talk) 12:04, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think the entire basis of this discussion was wrongly conceived. . WP is not a place for original research. A list of vegetarians should not be interpreted as a list of people who actually were to some degree or another vegetarians, which is something that none of us here is possibly able to determine. but a list of people who are reputed to have been vegetarians according to reliable sources, and it should be made clear that this will include those for whom there is contradictory evidence. What we are able to determine is the existence of reliable sources, not to choose between them.
Personally i think he does belong on such a list--it was very widely reported that he was a vegetarian, and our discussion about the actual historical veracity of that is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page discussion at List of vegans concerning 'See also' entries

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Have opened a discussion at List of vegans about adding the list links to individual 'See also' sections of entries which include the diets in the page text. Please comment there, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Alice Roberts

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Alice Roberts be on this list? In the article about her, it says she is a pescatarian.Vorbee (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No she shouldn't. She describes herself as a "vegetarian who eats fish". While she uses the word "vegetarian" what she is a describing is a "pescetarian". There is a separate list for them so I have added her at List of pescetarians and removed her from this list. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this even on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

No better articles to write about or what. Some lazy ass is compiling stupid lists Amarark001 (talk) 07:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

ARCHIVING REFERENCES

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It is important to keep references up to date, but as is often the case with web references the links die. When adding a web reference please also archive it at http://www.webcitation.org/archive, so that even if the link dies the page will be archived for reference. If you discover that a link has died, please check to see if there is a record of the page archived at http://www.webcitation.org/query or http://archive.org/web/web.php. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehtat (talk • contribs) 16:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

PETA as a source

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

PETA is only a reliable source for themself and not about others. Per WP:ABOUTSELF, "so long as ... it does not involve claims about third parties". There are probably 50-100 citations on this page pointing to the domains peta2.com, peta.org, peta.de, peta.org.uk, petaasiapacific.com, petaindia.com, petaworld.com, petakids.com and possibly others. Many of the entries in this list use ONLY citations to PETA, so I am giving a heads-up so that editors can start to replace those citations with reliable sources (before I delete them). Normal Op (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I tagged a bunch of them; there are now 65 "unreliable source" tags in the list. Normal Op (talk) 19:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

So that less experienced editors aren't misled on what WP:ABOUTSELF permits, take note that  SMcCandlish (who has helped form many of our policies and guidelines) stated the following at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard (now seen at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 310#RfC: Reliability of PETA): [I]f celebrity A. B. Ceedy says they are a vegetarian in an interview published by PETA, we can use that. That's WP:ABOUTSELF material on the part of that person, and we have no evidence of any kind that PETA fabricates interviews. For interview material, PETA is a conduit for the statements of someone else, and is not the creator of them. There's a very big difference between PETA asserting, in their voice, that someone is a vegetarian, versus PETA quoting an individual personally stating he or she is a vegetarian. Whether PETA is biased and self-serving in who they choose to interview and what they choose to ask them is irrelevant. [...] In short, do not confuse the medium with the message, or confuse the source of the idea with the venue through which you encountered it. PETA as an originator of a claim is useless, but PETA as a relay of the claim of someone else isn't suspicious." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Frozen: Such hubris to interpret the results of an entire RfC that had around 30 responses (in the middle of another discussion about PETA that lasted over 3 weeks with dozens more responses) and pick one single comment because for some reason you think that one comment is more senior than any of the other 29 responses. Self-published and advocacy websites have traditionally NOT been allowed as sources on Wikipedia, not even as a "conduit". The WP:ABOUTSELF policy states: "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... it does not involve claims about third parties". The majority responses on the PETA RSN were that PETA falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE. If you don't like the way ABOUTSELF is written, the solution is to get the policy tweaked, clarified, rewritten or changed, not to argue endlessly on its interpretation on numerous talk pages. Normal Op (talk) 19:24, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no hubris here. Just stating facts. And you twist facts. For example, you stated, "Such hubris to interpret the results of an entire RfC that had around 30 responses." I did not try to interpret the results of the PETA RfC. I quoted what an experienced editor who has helped form many of our policies and guidelines stated. And what the experienced editor stated is what multiple others made clear in that discussion -- interviews fall under WP:About self. That is why I quoted that editor. You can disagree with that aspect of the policy all you want to, but interviews have always fallen under WP:About self. If PETA interviews someone and that person says that they are a vegan? That is a WP:About self matter. Per what SMcCandlish state, the "it does not involve claims about third parties" piece does not apply in the case of interviews. Furthermore, PETA is not just some self-published source like someone's personal blog. You stated "in the middle of another discussion about PETA." No, that WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion is one discussion...which just so happens to have an RfC. Per WP:Self-published, self-published sources are allowed. They have been traditionally allowed. There are criteria for allowing them. Advocacy websites sources are allowed all the time. You're the one who just stated "the majority responses on the PETA RSN were that PETA falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE", and you accuse me of trying to interpret the results of an entire RfC? LOL. Good thing that RfC will get an official close soon. You are the one who endlessly argues on talk pages regarding the interpretation of our policies and guidelines, all to suit your twisted, activist logic. You are the one who doesn't like the way WP:About self is written. And either you don't understand it, or you are purposely acting dense regarding it. Your WP:Wikilawyering is obvious, and is demonstrated by your recently failed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loving Hut and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of veterinarians nominations. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
PETA claiming Person X is a vegetarian is different from PETA quoting someone who is claiming themself to be a vegetarian. The fact that PETA is a political machine and bends the truth on things pertaining to its stance is true of most if not all such organizations, and doesn't equate to evidence of or even a plausible hypothesis about them inventing entirely fake interviews and quotations. Celebs have defamation, right-of-publicity, and other grounds for lawsuits against anyone who did that to them, and a nonprofit is not in a position to withstand lawsuits from celebrities. PETA just claiming out of the blue that someone is vegan or whatever, without any indication of the ultimate source of the claim, is dubious, and probably insufficient sourcing under BLP because of the reliability questions about PETA. But the supposition that PETA would make up a bunch of fake claims by celebs themselves in their "own" (but actually falsified) words, would be a conspiracy theory with less credibility that PETA's credibility.

In short, use WP:COMMONSENSE. Just adapt use of PETA as a source accordingly to what the material is and what the nature of the claim is. If PETA is acting as a conduit for a subject's own ABOUTSELF claim, it is good enough. If the claim is being advanced novelly by PETA itself and cannot be corroborated elsewhere, then don't use it.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

The problem with this list

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

When a list gets nominated four times for deletion, maybe it's time to ask, what could be done better? Why do people keep looking at this list and concluding that it's not encyclopedic? Based on the latest discussion and my own observations, I see two problems:

  1. It didn't have a list of general references to establish notability as a stand-alone list. I have added some.
  2. It is rigidly organized into tables that allow only two pieces of information: occupation and country. Neither are particularly relevant to their identity as vegetarians.

If you look at the sources I provided in the lead, they talk about what vegetarianism means to these people - why they became vegetarian, how they have been affected by it. For example, John Harvey Kellogg's vegetarianism was part of his idea of "biologic living", which also frowned on sex and masturbation.[1] I propose that the tables be disbanded and more relevant information included, where available. RockMagnetist(talk) 04:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Considering that there was no consensus and the list was maintained, now is the time to revise the list as needed. I'm not sure about disbanding the tables, but perhaps we should consider how to limit the table, as the vegetarian section is relatively long. Is a list of "former vegetarians" and "disputed vegetarians" still needed? I'm just not sure. I think occupation can be helpful, but the page should definitely be improved, perhaps with notes on how they are vegetarian? Hmm. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
The former and disputed lists should go as tangential, yet tables seem to best way to handle such interesting lists. Maybe a text section "Interesting facts" could be included after the list. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
"Interesting facts" would turn it into a trivia magnet. I think if someone's vegetarianism is significant (i.e. discussed by multiple sources) is is relevant even if it is disputed or the subject ceased to be vegetarian. For example, if Paul McCartney started eating meat tomorrow I don't see what impact that has on the relevance of his vegetarianism. The "endurance" of the information logged here should be a consideration. The problem is the inclusion criteria i.e. whether someone is or isn't vegetarian is not an encyclopedic fact unless their vegetarianism itself is an encyclopedic fact. Betty Logan (talk) 18:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: Given that I have some specific objections to the table format and the choice of facts to present, it would be nice if you could manage more than a vague assurance that "tables seem the best way". A trivia section would miss the point, which is that the kind of information I am suggesting is the most important and relevant information. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:31, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually the most important information seems to be who has stated publicly that they adhere to a vegetarian diet, something which vegetarians in the late 20th-century, when such a list was less populated, enjoyed as a stand-alone recognition of a shared set of values. A section giving some of the reasons would be far from trivia, as you indicate, and making this a dynamic list which includes reasoning would be interesting if done well. Yet how many stories would be similar ("I didn't want to hurt animals", "My social set went vegetarian so I did", etc) and how many diverse enough to warrant trying to provide reasoning for each entrant? A well-written section coming after the list would provide plenty of different reasons, quotes, and backstories while not taking away from the list itself which makes the page relevant to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
A list of countries and occupations can be repetitive too! But I hear you. I don't think that it's necessary to include this sort of information for every person. As for the table format, I think List of female scientists before the 20th century is a good example of how the list could look. I'm not against including occupation and country, but it doesn't have to take up much space. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Or List of geophysicists. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Personally, the present list looks cleaner and easier to see the names than either of the lists you mention (and the geophysicists list seems very cluttered). That's what I think people come here for. I do notice though that there is plenty of room in this format for an extra column because the reference column needs very little space and could be greatly condensed. Does the type of descriptor you're envisioning fit in a new column? I've never read the "Notes" down below, those look interesting. One good thing coming from the process is hopefully it has had enough nominations, and now will be improved by ideas such as you're envisioning. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I disagree that the list of geophysicists looks cluttered. It is compact, and it readily accommodates variable amounts of information as warranted. In any case, I think we should be more concerned about quality of information than a clean look. Adding the information I'm proposing in a column would not work well. By its very nature, it would vary a lot in length, and in a table format you'd probably need big multicolumn blocks to accommodate some entries. Which would not be very clean. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I also think it would be useful to split the list into time periods. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ 8 of History’s Most Famous Vegetarians
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_vegetarians/Archive_4&oldid=1093196376"