Talk:List of vegans/Archive 4

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 9

Load time

What does {{sortname|Sean |Brennan}} achieve that [[Sean Brennan]] doesn't? The page is slow to load after an edit because of the number of templates, so it would be good to remove any that serve no purpose. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

It sorts the names by surname i.e. Brennan, Sean. Without it "Sean" would be the primary sort key. Betty Logan (talk) 03:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
We've added the names in alphabetical order, according to the last name, so before the sortname template was added, people could read the names A-Z or Z-A. What further sorting does the template do? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry, I just checked back, and I can see now that we had A-Z as written, but it wasn't sortable Z-A. My apologies. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
This really isn't a big deal for me, so I would rather it didn't turn into one. If the template is that much of an issue you can just add hidden text to achieve the same effect. On the other hand, as you say it loads up in alphabetical order, and I don't see why we need the list to sort Z-A so on that basis the templates could also just be removed. In short, they don't have to be there, they just usually are. You could even argue that by rmeoving them the list has greater functionality since it could then be sorted by first name, which some non-English readers may prefer. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Section editing

Does this table allow section editing, in the sense of allowing editors to edit different sections at once? I assumed it did, but I'm getting edit conflicts with myself when I try to edit different sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

On other list articles where I have tried to edit multiple sections in tandem I sometimes get edit conflicts. When someone else edits a different section to me that is usually ok. Betty Logan (talk) 17:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
On another note Epicgenius has removed the section breaks you installed in List of vegetarians yesterday. I agreed with the addition of the extra sectioning, but I have already reverted him twice already, so if you want to restore the changes you made I think you should. Betty Logan (talk) 17:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I installed extra breaks because the names from the United States still have to be merged, so they will make each section longer. But for some reason I am now having difficulty merging the names. I just tried to move G-L names from the US into the G-L section but it scrambled the table. I tried moving one at a time, and it scrambled it too. I then tried moving one into another section, and I got the same scrambling. I can't see what I was doing wrong, so I've reverted myself for now. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I see you managed to do some (thank you). I just tried to move two S names, and got the same scrambling. I'm doing exactly what I've done before (just copying and pasting), but it's turning the table into a mess. Did you have any issues? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, it was only scrambling in preview; I went ahead and saved and it was fine. Just a note about the long descriptions of people. They are causing the occupation parameter to be so wide that the table bleeds into the images, so it's better to keep the descriptions succinct. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I asked on the PUMP about the problems with preview; apparently it's because there are subsections within the table. We may have to have several tables as before, alphabetical rather than per country. I'm awaiting further replies, but it looks as though we may have no choice. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Note that this is being discussed here. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The consensus at the PUMP is that having these within one sortable table would be complex, and that we need either separate subsections or separate pages entirely for each section. So I'm about turn the alphabetical sections within the table into separate subsections. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Occupation width

I am not sure what you mean by the table bleeding into the images, but it sounds like a possible sizing issue on smaller monitors. This could be down to a couple of things:
  1. Setting column widths for all four columns forces the table over. I have removed the "occupation" column setting so the browser can set the width itself.
  2. Setting hard pixel limits for the images. On low res screens the images need to be smaller, so I have set a relative size to the reader's browser default.
Will you please see if you can recreate the "bleed" with the changes I have made? Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • You have restored the "class" parameter to set the width of the table. You can't set the width of the table through a class parameter; the class parameter designates the table class. Only a style parameter sets the width. Basically what you are doing is not setting width. If you were to replace:

! scope="col" class="width:8em;"|Occupation

with

! scope="col" |Occupation

it would do exactly the same thing, because class doesn't set width. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It's okay so long as we don't have very long descriptions of people's occupation, which look a bit odd anyway, so I've been keeping them succinct. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
It may be ok on my screen, and it may end up being ok on yours, but if someone with poor eyesight has their font size turned up this problem could still occur for them. Do you get the same problem at List of world snooker champions which uses an image gallery? Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I've replaced class with style. I'll look at the other list to see what you mean. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation templates

I'm on a fast machine and there so many templates it's taking 20 seconds plus to load after saving. That's a real bar to editing, not to mention the ref formats are wildly inconsistent. Some manual, some templates, and even within templates all kinds of different ways of filling in the parameters. Plus lots of unnecessary parameters filled in, which reduces load time still further.

I would like to begin the process of rmving the templates and introducing some consistency. The templates started to be added around 2009 (writing from memory), so per CITE we're entitled to remove them because they were introduced without discussion. Are there any objections? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I think editors should be allowed to add references in the way they want: if someone adds something using a cite template I am personally fine with that; if someone wants to type it in manually I am fine with that too. The main thing is that we get the sourcing details in some form, especially in the case of offline sources. This isn't like the list of American Presidents where you effectively have to update it maybe a couple of times decade; it is a rapidly expanding list, so I think it's a near impossible task to maintain a consistent style. Betty Logan (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I think if we introduce consistency it will be easy to maintain it. But the key point is load time. It's currently a misery to edit it. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Ref formatting history
  • 2004: article created with no refs
  • 2005: people start adding bare links as refs
  • By September 2006: footnotes and manual refs
  • March 2008: the first citation template is added [1]
  • March 2008–May 2012: more templates and manual refs are added; the formatting is inconsistent and the page hard to load.
  • May 2012: Andomedium converts templates to manual refs to speed up load time. [2]
  • July 2012: Betty Logan restores the templates. [3]
  • July 2012–present: both templates and manual refs are added.
Proposal

What I would like to do now is introduce a very simple manual system that's easy for others to copy, and which should speed up load time considerably:

  • Book: John Smith, Name of Book, Name of publisher, year of publication, p. 1.
  • News article: John Smith, "Title of article," (with link), Name of newspaper, date of publication (no access date)
  • Website: John Smith, "Title of entry," Name or URL of website (with link), access date if the page has no date on it.

SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you are asking if I would revert you if you put all the references into a consistent format then I wouldn't; I would not revert a consistent format structure regardless of whether it included templates or not. Btw, you would also need the edition number or ISBN for the books as well. But I am more interested in the ramifications for editing: I have seen some editors revert other editors for adding sources that do not maintain the consistent citation style, so this wouldn't lead to that type of scenario would it? If someone added a source using a template, then it would either remain in that form or presumably be converted? Betty Logan (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, thank you, that's good to know. No, people wouldn't be reverted for adding templates; they could add a source in whatever format they chose, but eventually it would be converted to the manual format. As for edition number and ISBN, they're actually not needed per CITE. It's extra work to get the right ISBN; we don't know, when an editor adds a page number, which edition it is, so it rarely makes sense to add that information. I prefer to keep refs as simple as possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Later editions can have added or excised material, becoming de facto a different book; the pagination can also be dependent on the edition too. While I am somewhat dubious that people would work their way through our list checking sources, in theory it should still be an option. Obviously if that material isn't provided to begin with then it can't included; it's not our job to match a page number to an edition, but if an editor supplies the edition number it shouldn't be dropped. If they supply an ISBN in lieu of an edition number, that shouldn't be dropped either, unless there is only one edition. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikid77 has very kindly converted the templates using a script, so I'm going to start slowly carrying these over, section by section, tidying them as I go; parts of each section may look messy while I'm in the middle of that, so I'll finish each section before I start a new one. I'm also going to remove "me too" refs, as apparently the number of links is adding to the slow load time. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Source request

Hi Harnad, sorry I can't see where this source says you are a vegan, per this edit. The other two sources you offered earlier [4] didn't mention it, which is why I removed the entry. One of those sources is used in the article about you to support veganism, but it discusses vegetarianism. [5] The source you're now using is about a talk entitled (according to Google Translate), "Luxury, necessity, pain, why I'm not carnivorous," but again that doesn't address veganism. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Do you have a source to that effect? It can be something you've published yourself (e.g. your blog) or a reliable secondary source. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • It's on your WP page sourced to a 1990 article that says you're a vegetarian, and I couldn't see it in the links you provided earlier. It does say it on your blog, so I'll add that to the page as a source. Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Does self-identification override facts?

Should a person be added to the list if they are identified as "vegan", even though the facts clearly refute the claim? Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Who decides what the 'facts' are? And which particular definition of 'veganism' is being applied? Contributors 'determining' who is or isn't vegan looks like WP:OR at minimum to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This is Tobey Maguire's comment on the matter: "Actually, I’m close to being a vegan, but I’m not one, technically." (see [6]). Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
No, that was Tobey Maguire's comment on the matter in 2008. That would require you to ignore the sources I provided from the past few years. Helpsome (talk) 20:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In which source does he claim to be vegan? Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Betty Logan has changed the RfC question. [7] It should probably be changed back given that people have already started answering. The original question was about self-identification: "Should a person be added to the list if they identify as "vegan", even though the facts clearly refute the claim?" SlimVirgin (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In that case the whole RFC becomes irrelevant in view of the dispute we are trying to resolve, since we have now clearly established that the person in question has not self identified. So we can address a hypothetical question or we can address the revised scenario. Betty Logan (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
You didn't make clear that the RfC was about Tobey Maguire. I thought it had been triggered by that, but that you were asking a general question about self-identification. The RfC will be difficult to close if the question has changed mid-RfC without letting people know. So I'd suggest reverting to the original question, then opening a second RfC about secondary-identification, or about Tobey Maguire in particular, if you want to address those issues too. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The RFC is pointless anyway, in that one cannot overrule policy via a RFC. If significant sources contradict each other, we report both. We don't decide which is right and which is wrong. We don't determine 'facts' for ourselves, as I'm sure Betty Logan is aware. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The dispute

User:Helpsome persists in removing Tobey Maguire from the List of vegetarians and adding him to the List of vegans, due to the fact that he "identifies" as being vegan. However, Maguire concedes he occasionally eats dairy products and honey, which are prohibited from the vegan diet. This is what he states: ""I don't eat eggs, or nearly any dairy - no cheese or milk. I do eat honey and a piece of milk chocolate here and there." (see [8]).

User:Helpsome is persisting with these edits because he considers the factual accuracy of veganism being irrelevant, and if you identify as vegan then that makes you one. I disagree. It is not a case of self-identification: if he chomps down on a hamburger in Burger King he is not vegetarian. Like claiming to be African American doesn't actually make you one unless you actually are one. Veganism is not like a religion or sexuality: it is a diet that has certain criteria to be met before you can regarded as "vegan". Someone who occasionally eats dairy products is a vegetarian, and that is why he was on the List of vegetarians as opposed to the List of vegans. I propose to restore the status quo, and remove Maguire from the vegan list and restore him to the vegetarian list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

'Regarded as vegan' by whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well there are a ton of sources that describe him that way, but let's focus on actual quotes:
  1. Natalie Portman (2008): "I was around Tobey Maguire in rehearsals [for the film "Brothers"] and he’s vegan and I was, like, this is nice," [9]
  2. Jim Sheridan (2009): "He is a vegan, so as far as I am concerned he doesn't eat anyway." [10]
  3. Tobey Maguire (2007): "The 31-year-old actor describes himself as "close to becoming a vegan"" [11]
  4. Tobey Maguire (2011): "I don't eat eggs, or nearly any dairy - no cheese or milk. I do eat honey and a piece of milk chocolate here and there." [12]
So while he is proclaimed to be "vegan" by people who have worked with him, he doesn't actually come out and claim it himself. Betty Logan (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If this was a list of 'people who self-identify as vegan', you'd have a point. It isn't though, and you stated that inclusion is a matter of 'factual accuracy'. So who determines the 'facts'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It is not an ambiguous definition. Veganism is universally defined as prohibiting animal derivatives from a diet, although there are stricter definitions such as not wearing leather etc, but it was invented and originally defined as excluding dairy products from the vegetarian diet. The term is being misappropriated in regards to this particular case. If you consume dairy by the definition of the term you cannot be vegan. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If some definitions are stricter than others, a person can be vegan by one definition, and not by another. It is ambiguous. Who determines which definition we apply here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If he admitted to wearing a leather jacket I would agree, but he admits to consuming dairy products, which is prohibited by the original definition. A "vegan" that eats dairy is vegetarian, since the distinction vanishes. But this is besides the point anyway: he himself claims to be "nearly vegan", and this isn't a list of "nearly vegans". Betty Logan (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I've not seen a source for "nearly vegan". Do you have one? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
In reference 3 above he states he is "close to becoming vegan". That is not the same as being vegan. It's clear you want to reduce this debate to word games though, so I am just going to leave the RFC to run its course. Betty Logan (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever - the RFC actually gets to the heart of the issue anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

On the List of vegetarians page Betty said "even if we know someone is in fact a vegan, we still need a source for the claim" but here when I provide four sources, she has decided that since she disagrees then those sources don't matter. Which is it? What we know or what the sources state? Helpsome (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

  • I think that a person who self identifies as a vegan without actually fulfilling said lifestyle is not a vegan, although he or she should be on the list of vegetarians if they don't eat meat — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that Wikipedia content shouldn't be determined on the basis of whether we 'think' someone can be described as vegan - and policy would seem to suggest the same thing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, everyone on this says that they're a vegan, right? Why not move it to List of Self-Identified Vegans? (found this page via WP:AN)--Howicus (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
On second thought, the page says "The following is a list of notable people reported to have adhered to a vegan diet at some point in their life, whether for health reasons or any other." So as long as they were reported to adhere to that diet, it shouldn't matter what they actually did. --Howicus (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes it does matter if the person is vegan or not. The reason that we use the word "reported" is because it is an unprovable fact, so it cannot be stated as a fact. If someone claims to be vegan or is reported to be vegan we accept it on good faith. If they actively deny it or implicitly deny it as Maguire does then we don't. The criteria for the list is obvious, despite the fuzziness of the wording. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, if someone self-identifies as vegan, and if secondary sources back them up, we should include them, despite the occasional minor lapse. We should only remove them if the lapse is such that no one could reasonably argue they belong in the category, e.g. they are seen in a steakhouse tucking into a plate of meat. Tobey Maguire eating the occasional piece of milk chocolate doesn't mean he's no longer a dietary vegan in his view or in the view of the sources.

    If we exercise a very strict standard of purity, we get into a situation where he's a vegan for 10 years, admits to having eaten a piece of chocolate, is removed from the article, goes for another (what?) two years as a vegan, is restored to the article, admits to nibbling at a piece of cheese, is removed, and so on. And we'd have to do that for everyone. We had the same situation with Bill Clinton, who admits to eating a mouthful of turkey at Thanksgiving, but who is widely acknowledged as a dietary vegan, so we include him here and ignore his occasional weak moments (see Paris exemption for a discussion of the issue of personal purity). SlimVirgin (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

This comparison with Clinton does not hold up, mainly for the reason Maguire does not identify as vegan. Clinton was kept out for eating fish, not for eating "one mouthful of turkey at Christmas". Maguire identifies himself as "close to becoming a vegan", and that is not quite the same thing; by choosing that wording he is implicitly acknowledging he is not vegan. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
There were arguments on several pages, not only here, where people argued that Clinton eating a mouthful of turkey at Thanksgiving meant he should not be called a vegan. Maguire said he was close to becoming a vegan in 2007, but many secondary sources are now calling him that, and he recently refused the gift of a car that had leather seats: "Unfortunately, the luxury vehicle came with leather seats, which is the last thing to give a vegan who embraces the lifestyle, not just the diet. News.com.au says Maguire kindly returned the vehicle to the film's production staff who then returned it to the dealership and asked for a vinyl seat replacement." [13] That's where he makes his comment about still eating honey (which some vegan societies accept) and "a piece of milk chocolate here and there." So really we're down to what "here and there" means. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The point you are missing is that he has not declared himself to be vegan, regardless of what third party sources say. We have two comments directly from him: one where he states he is "close to becoming vegan" and a later one where he admits to eating milk chocoloate. The later comment confirms the former. The fact is, from his quotes this is someone who seems to know exactly what the definitions are, and if he wanted to identify himself as vegan he most likely would have done it given how selective he is in choosing his language. Betty Logan (talk) 19:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know whether he has ever said "I am a vegan," but when someone doesn't eat meat, eggs, dairy and won't use leather, that fits the definition and secondary sources are applying the term to him. He doesn't ever say "don't call me a vegan; I had two pieces of chocolate last year." The issue is that we ought not to impose our own standards, along the lines of No true Scotsman. If he said that he still regularly eats milk chocolate, I would agree with you, but "now and then" suggests he doesn't, and given that secondary sources have decided he's notable as a vegan, it seems odd for Wikipedians to insist that he should first of all get rid of his occasional chocolate habit. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, in absence of some official certification process or regulating body that controls the term "Vegan", self-identification as reported in reliable sources should be the only inclusion criteria. Everything else is WP:OR. In many ways I see this similar to sexuality and gender identity such as lesbian or androgyny. Just like with being vegan there is no official "certification process" that you go through to "earn" the label of lesbian or androgynous or governing body that can "revoke" the label if you somehow "slip up" or fail to live by whatever predetermined standards others may have for those labels. People can argue and look at the "facts" and come up with their own determination about whether or not someone is lesbian or androgynous but that kind of OR has no place in Wikipedia and those terms are only used in articles if the individuals themselves identify as such and it is reported by reliable sources. I fail to see why we shouldn't permit the same standards of self-identification here. AgneCheese/Wine 20:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
He. Does. Not. Self. Identify. Read the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you kindly read my comment and tell me where I took a stance on Tobey Maguire? The RfC question as listed in the title and (presumably) written by you is Does self-identification override facts? My answer to that question is "Yes" and my reasoning followed. Whether or not there are sources showing that Tobey Maguire self-identifies is not the question that you put forth in this RfC. The bolding in your comment and your quick bite signals that you may want to take it down a notch if we all hope to have a WP:CIVIL discussion. AgneCheese/Wine 20:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
If you don't think he self identifies, why did you entitled this "Does self-identification override facts?" Helpsome (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Because that is what you claimed. When an RFC is filed both claims have to be presented neutrally. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
When an RfC is filed it is supposed to ask a specific question dealing with a specific issue. It looks like we really have 2 different questions here 1.) Does self-identification override facts? and 2.) Does second hand testimony of "self-identification" (Person B says that Person A identifies as vegan) count as self-identification? My answer to the former is still "yes" but if you would have asked the second question then I would have said "no". However Betty your responses feel like you are making this RfC to be about an entirely different (and unasked) 3rd question of whether or not Tobey Maguire, specifically, should be included in this article. I don't think is helpful and if that is the case then this RfC is destined for failure. Having a clear and unambiguous inclusion criteria for this article is in the best interest of everyone so I would recommend that we drop the "Tobey Maguire dispute" and refocus the RfC on the two relevant questions or at the very least on the one question that was explicitly asked. AgneCheese/Wine 20:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I think he does self-identify. Numerous secondary sources are calling him a vegan, including in interviews with him, and he does not correct them, except to say that he eats a piece of milk chocolate "now and then." But at no point does he ask that people not refer to him as a vegan because of that. But as Agne says, Maguire is not the only issue here. The RfC question is about the extent to which self-identification should be accepted in general. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes like the comments above I don't think other people should be able to tell individuals what they "really" are or aren't based on a personal set of values. Helpsome (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes AS he is reported as being a vegan in January of this year & Confronting Animal Exploitation: Grassroots Essays on Liberation and Veganism McFarland. describes him as vegan & Living Vegan For Dummies Wiley says he is a vegan, in fact it has a list of notable people who are vegans, is it a source in this article? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes - analyzing whether someone meets the definition of "vegan" is the very definition of WP:OR, specifically WP:SYNTH. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:02, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, self-identification is enough. Any arguing about the "facts" is merely original research. Now, if there is a well-documented, reliably sourced controversy over whether someone is a vegan or a vegetarian, then that's a bit different. But I don't think that happens all that often and it would require multiple sources commenting on it to make it a controversy. SilverserenC 05:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, Self-idenfication is the most important aspect of this. We wouldn't ding someone saying they are a practicing Catholic if they were to be involved in pre-marital sex. Unless there are RSs discussing how he is not a vegan, we should include it. Dreambeaver(talk) 18:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes This is the type of thing for which only self-identification actually counts ... a person may consider themselves a Roman Catholic, for example, even if they fail to follow all of the rules of that church, a person can call themselves an "atheist" even if they mutter prayers when in traffic, etc. "I saw him eat a Hershey Bar therefore he is not really 'vegan'" is precisely the soty of nit-picking in which we ought not engage. Collect (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes Use the sources, Luke. Veganism is not a life-long thing; if the most recent sources say someone is vegan, they are vegan. BLP rules apply here: if the person says they are vegan, that's pretty compelling; if news articles say they are vegan, that is too. What we (wikipedians) can't do is decide whether or not someone is vegan on any other basis than what the sources say. For example, if the sources say "foo is Vegan, but occasionally eats milk chocolate or honey," then they are vegan, because the source said they are vegan. Our opinions as to what vegan is are immaterial; if we believe that vegans do not eat honey, for example, the fact that the article says that foo eats honey does not contradict its statement that foo is vegan, even though we personally may disagree. Abhayakara (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Precisely speaking there is one false implied premise and two ambiguities in the question. The false implied premise is that the "facts" are known. They might have eaten meat yesterday (as a non-vegan, or a vegan who "slipped"), but be a vegan today. Etc. Another ambiguity is the definition of vegan. Is someone who "slips" occasionally still a vegan? Etc. The other ambiguity is what does "should be added" cooperatively mean in a WP article context: 1. Is inclusion allowable based on that? ("allowable" = not prohibited by policy) My answer: "Yes" 2. Is that a force for inclusion (e.g. in a debate) I'd say yes, a self-declaration weighs in on the side of inclusion during a debate. 3. Can one force inclusion based on that? My answer: No. Editors can simply choose to leave it out. Wp:ver / sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a force for inclusion. I disagree with editors who implied otherwise. Overall, I would lean towards putting them in based on a self-declaration. North8000 (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes I'm going to have to agree with the above "yes'". We need to rely upon self-identification in secondary sources, regardless of our own, personal opinions. I dream of horses (T) @ 02:09, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Removed entries

I removed two entries a few minutes ago on the grounds that the sources were not reliable: [14].

In the case of the first one, tumblr.com sites are basically like Blogger or Twitter, so it could just be a fansite. Either way, there needs to be some corroboration this site officially represents Phil America. As for the other source, HappyCow is not considered a reliable source as per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_27#HappyCow.3F. Betty Logan (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I also removed 2 entries a few minutes ago on the grounds that the two persons are NOT vegan.

and

are neither vegan nor vegetarian. They adhere to a vegan diet sometimes....then again so does everyone. by way of some quick references, of which there are many. Serena was catered for, whilst at the australian open by Omid Jaffari....a well known raw food vegan chef, however he, himself even refers to feeding her chicken. [15]. Venus refers to herself as a 'cheagan'. Everyone who is not a vegan is a cheagan. [16]. Neither of them 'deserve' a place on this list. Please excuse me for my lack of markup...its been 10 years since i did any html, but this got me so riled i had to change it. Thanks --Pantiesontherod (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Clintons

Just noting here for future reference that I've removed Bill and Chelsea Clinton. Bill Clinton is eating fish or eggs once a week, [20] and Chelsea Clinton is eating meat. [21] SlimVirgin (talk) 16:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tobey Maguire

Can you guys add him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.215.215 (talk) 19:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Simon Amstell

Is he really a vegan? The cited source says , '...resort to eating chocolate despite his vegan lifestyle'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

We should probably give him the benefit of the doubt. He seems to be a committed vegan (see [22] and [23]) and to be fair that comment comes from his show so could just be part of his routine. Also, you can get Dairy-free chocolate so it's ambiguous (unlike the fish-eating "vegan" Bill Clinton). Betty Logan (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. If he is a genuine practising vegan (with maybe the occasional lapse) rather than a wannabe then we should leave it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Betty.

I followed the link here from my watchlist and did not notice this was the talk page. I thought it mas the article page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Lol, that's ok. You do have a point though, in that it is a bit bizarre to maintain a list of "mistaken" vegans. Basically what happens is that these people (clinton especially) keep getting added to the list using old/erroneous sources so it is useful to keep a record of the accurate/up to date source so that editors can refer to it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Veganism is not just a diet

Guess the current introduction sentence:

"The following is a list of notable people who adhere to a vegan diet, which is a diet which includes no animals or animal products of any kind".

could use some expansion, as the definition of Veganism according to the Vegan Society is:

"Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose". [24]

82.169.98.59 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

So the relevant sentence could be changed in:
"The following is a list of notable people who adhere to Veganism, which is a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of and cruelty to animals for food, for clothing, or for any other purpose".
82.169.98.59 (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that would EXCLUDE most of the 'celebrities' who appear on 'vegan celebrities lists'. Some of these folks are erstwhile dietary 'vegans' (e.g. Oprah's cleanse, Al Gore's environmental diet, and Bill Clinton's now-and-then vegan dietary preference, when it suits him, now that the diet has lost his once-vegetarian daughter. MaynardClark (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

This problem can simply be solved by adding "(to a certain extend)" or "(more or less)" between "who" and "adhere".
82.169.98.59 (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Veganism is primarily defined in dietary terms so if someone says they are "vegan" we can make the general assumption that they at least follow a vegan diet, but there is no way of distinguishing between those who are making a lifestyle choice and those making a dietary choice. A a result our lede makes it explicitly clear this is a list of people who adhere to a vegan diet, and we shouldn't really make assumptions about their lifestyle beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It could be argued that the article should be moved to, List of notable people who adhere to a vegan diet. The title would theg agree with the content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
In itself a good idea, but in that way the fact that several persons on the list are much more than just dietary vegans (for instance Donald Watson), would not show.
Therefore the informative return of the article would be optimally, when the introductional sentence would fully inform about the different extends, to which the mentioned persons can be vegan(s).
For instance:
"The following is a list of notable people who either just in dietary sense, or also in certain other behavioral ways, or fully, adhere to Veganism".
82.169.98.59 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I get the impression that English is not your primary language so I have taken the liberty of redrafting the lede for you. I think it touches on all the bases that you were trying to cover though. Betty Logan (talk) 03:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"People who adopt veganism for ethical reasons will often boycott or avoid all products or activities that are perceived to exploit animals during production."

Are acivities also produced? Guess no. What about:

"People who adopt veganism for ethical reasons will often boycott or avoid all products or activities that are perceived to exploit animals during production or otherwise."?

82.169.98.59 (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

"People who adopt veganism for ethical reasons will often boycott or avoid all products or activities that are perceived to exploit animals".
Can products exploit animals? Guess no.
82.169.98.59 (talk) 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Billy Bob Thornton

I do not think someone who makes the comment, "I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here" can be considered a vegan of any kind. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC).

I agree with that. If it were just a lapse or something fair enough, but basically what he's saying is that he generally follows a vegan diet without really being a vegan. Pinging J Milburn. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I really don't think it's our job to be the vegan police. He identifies as vegan, and PETA calls him vegan, so I think that's good enough for the list. I'm adding him back... J Milburn (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_4"