Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Vague job description next to each entry in brackets?

I think I recall there once being a vague description of their job next to all or some of the names listed (i.e. name/position/genre of a musician's band) here before though it seems to have been replaced bya coloured box. Though I agree colour coding is much more visually appealing it to me seems less encyclopedic, as the bracketed text provided information directly accurate to the person listed. The bracketed text seemed to both make the list more meaningful and expanded on each person's notablity in my opinion. Robo37 (talk) 11:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we've never had job descriptions on the list, perhaps you're confusing it with List of vegans? However, if the vegan list can have job descriptions I don't see why this list can't provided it's done in the same vein. Betty Logan (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

links to other languages

I recently went through and changed all inline interlanguage links to internal links, some of which resulted in links to en.wiki articles that editors here didn't seem to know about and some of which resulted in redlinks. I have been reverted with the edit summary "Regardless of whether the pages are on a foreign language wiki it establishes a notability criteria; if English articles are created they can be l..." I have two main points.

1. The point of an encyclopedia is to inform. Imagine the reader who comes to this page on English language Wikipedia and finds that links take him or her a foreign language. How is that helpful? You occasionally see people who delink redlinks because they consider them unsightly, rather than as invitations to start articles, but this is the first time I've ever seen links to foreign language wikis. Also there's no easy way to tell if a local en.wiki article is created if what would have been a redlink is instead an interlanguage link, so doing it this way requires editors to occasionally search for the names that are linked to other languages to see if they have been created locally to keep the links current. It's just a mess.
2. About notability, "Regardless of whether the pages are on a foreign language wiki it establishes a notability criteria" is a confused thought. First, each language establishes their own notability criterion. An editor on de.wiki who attempts to "establish notability" by linking to an en.wiki article risks getting laughed at. You can certainly use references in other languages to create a local article, but the existence of an article in another language says very little about if that article is notable on another wiki, or if it has even been reviewed for notability on its own Wikipedia. Second, there are notable people who have articles. There are non-notable people who have articles, which have yet to be deleted. There are notable people who do not have articles. Redlinking to an article title, if the editor believes it is notable, is normal and, once an article is created locally, it can be evaluated to see it it meets notability criteria.

In summary, using interlanguage links in this manner is unhelpful to the reader, requires additional work by editors and cannot be used to "establish notability" locally. Please remove them. - BanyanTree 07:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

To address each of your points:

1. Each target link is clearly marked if it is in another language. If the reader wants to read about the person they always have the option of using Google translate. I check the foreign language links every few months and convert them to English equivalents if they have materialised in the meantime so it's not a big deal really. Offering readers something is better than offering them nothing.
2. Requiring that each entry has an article on Wikipedia to establish notability is a non contentious, systematic and quick approach; if we didn't do it we would have about half a dozen notability discussions on the go at any one time. We have learned this from experience so the requirement has been a long standard feature of the list. Such an approach is advocated by the list notability guidelines. We have extended it to all Wikipedias because we have found this to be a more neutral and representative approach that helps remove some of the bias towards people in English speaking countries. Different projects may have different notability criteria, but it doesn't alter the fact it is a notability criteria.

This isn't a policy issue, since there is nothing in the policy that prohibits us from linking to other Wikipedias; this is an issue for editors to resolve, and this is what we have found to work best from the experience of regularly editing the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverts without discussions

I'm not sure why my edit for Confucius, which would improve the list, were reverted (by Betty Logan). Confucius wrote extensively about eating meat in his passages. I posted three reputable sources, where before it had a single non-scholarly webpage as its source. Yet it was reverted to the questionable source without a mention of why in the comments. How is that helpful? In my opinion, the list is quite shoddy as a result of this type of oversight. Furthermore, I would challenge you to find a scholarly source that supports Confucius as vegetarian. Given this issue with this figure, Confucius, I would further propose that ivu.org does not fulfil the attributes of Wikipedia:Verifiability as it does not itself provide evidence for its assertions. Also, I note that Category:Chinese_vegetarians doesn't include Confucius, but I'm not surprised because that article mentions a discordant point about Confucius: he quit his job because meat was owed to him. Twocs (talk) 14:32, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion is entirely in keeping with WP:BRD, and my edit summary provided you with a reason. Your sources were hardly reputable: the first one was another Wikipedia article (prohibited by WP:CIRCULAR), the second was self published (prohibited by WP:SPS), and the third was some cooking blog making jokes about Confucius' wife, which doesn't explicitly tackle the claim. If you find a WP:RS source that challenges the claim about Confucius please feel free to re-add the information. With respect to your concerns about the IVU source, I have replaced that with two book references, one of them written by an academic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on, you can hardly cite the Lee Dian Rainey reference for mentioning "vegetarian" once on page 15. The author notes that these are stories, and on the following page says, "It is possible that some of these stories are true. But it is more likely that they were created to honor the Sage... pious stories of Confucius' life are not things we need to rely on." Rainey dismisses claims of vegetarianism as non-scholarly, only stories, so cannot be used to bolster such claims. So far we have only folk stories about Confucius becoming a vegetarian after finishing up his extensive writings about eating meat according to tradition. To see why Confucius is not on the list of Category:Chinese_vegetarians we need only look to the article on Confucius, which recounts a scholarly account of being owed meat. As for the second source, not sure why you need to dig deep for one that isn't about Confucius, when he is a quite famous historical figure. Twocs (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, in regards to historical figures from thousands of years ago it will be near impossible to provide any sort of factual information that is independent of the mythology that surrounds the figure; in fact, given the nature of such a claim it would be next to impossible to validate this information as an indisuptable fact about anyone, even a modern celebrity. It is made clear in the introduction to this article that it is a list of people who are reported to have adhered to a vegetarian diet at some point during their life. The two references clearly display such claims have been made about Confucius, so he clearly qualifies for the list under the existing criteria as having been reported to have been vegetarian. In addition to that he appears in many famous vegetarian lists so there is certainly a popular notion that he was vegetarian, regardless of whether he was or not. If you feel this is not entirely accurate in presenting the nature of the claim, then the onus is on you to provide sources that satisfy WP:RS that challenge the claim; since it is an oft repeated claim about Confucius, I am sure there would be some scholarly source that has challenged or attempted to debunk it if it had no basis in fact. Betty Logan (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Obviously your list is not of lifelong vegetarians. To be vegetarian in the list, just be like Confucius: eat meat for 68 years, write about the necessity of ritual animal sacrifice to maintain social stability, whatever. It doesn't matter, the list of vegetarians stands. Twocs (talk) 16:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Name Change to List of Famous Vegetarians?

I believe changing the page name to List of Famous Vegetarians, would improve the overall clarity of the page.

WP:LISTNAME states Words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. should not be included in the title of a list article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Since this is an encyclopedia, "famous" is tautological. CCS81 (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Lee Hyori

An editor is insisting on adding Lee Hyori in this edit because she claims to be vegetarian, even though she occasionally "eats seafood".

Talented idol singer, model, and actress, Lee Hyori, recently announced that she’s becoming a full-fledged vegetarian.

On the 24th, officials from Lee Hyori’s agency spoke with Star News and stated, “It has been almost two full months since Lee Hyori last ate meat. She’s doing this for plenty of reasons, one being to keep her health in check. She only eats a small amount of seafood from time to time.” [1]

There is a specific phrase for a 'vegetarian' who eats fish, it is a pescetarian. I recommend adding her to the List of pescetarians because by occasionally eating seafood you are not eligible for the list. You are either a vegetarian or you are not, the definition is quite clear. Betty Logan (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not that uncommon for a vegetarian to taste a piece of shrimp or a bite of fish once in a long while and still be regarded by others as a vegetarian. This amount of seafood is too insignificant to qualify the person as a pescetarian. Similar to how a cat isn't regarded as an omnivore just because she eats a bit of grass now & then.

That is the argument. It's not my argument; it's just a popular argument.

In the case of Lee Hyori, it was a hypothetical argument.

Hyori was only eating bits of seafood once in a while back when she was still transitioning to a vegetarian diet. At this point, she doesn't eat any seafood. If I had known you were going to remove her from the list again, I would have pointed that out. --Andomedium (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

South Africans

J. M. Coetzee, listed under Australia, was raised in South Africa. Considering that people like Einstein are located in their original countries despite obtaining citizenship in others, it seems more accurate to put him under a South African heading. Also, philosopher David Benatar is a South African vegan. He espouses it in his book Better Never To Have Been, among other places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.105.169 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Name Sectioning Vs Country Sectioning

Ideally, this list would be structured as a single undivided, sortable table.
However, this list is now quite large and will be growing rapidly, and sectioning is therefore desirable for increasing convenience and avoiding the long delays that occur when previewing or saving changes made to large pages in full-page edit mode.
So, we know that we want to section the list.
Now we need to know which method we should use to section it.
It appears that sectioning by country or sectioning by name are the two best methods.
Below I will post some thoughts on this issue as they come to mind and I'm hoping others will do the same.
To help us with this process, here's the list sectioned by country and here's the list sectioned by name.

Actually, the saving delay occurs with both full-page and section editing, but the preview delay occurs only with full-page editing (or large section editing). --Andomedium (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If we section by country, we no longer need a country column which means more space for the other table columns. --Andomedium (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom have many easily-verifiable notable vegetarians, therefore the sections for those countries are growing quite large while other sections remain quite small. Sectioning the list by name decreases the chances of the list becoming composed primarily of just a few very large, difficult to edit, sections. --Andomedium (talk) 17:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it is common for readers to be interested in only the notable people of certain countries. For those readers, it is especially convenient if the list is sectioned by country. --Andomedium (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If the performance of Wikipedia and its servers remains fairly stagnant while this list grows rapidly, we are likely going to (eventually) want to give each section of the list its own Wikipedia page and use the current page as an index for those pages.

So, we might want to make this sectioning decision based on what type of pages would be most appropriate in that case; country pages or name (alphabet) pages. --Andomedium (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning by name gives us about 26 sections to divide the entries amongst. Sectioning by country gives us (potentially) 193+ sections to divide the entries amongst. This could have been a point in favor of country sectioning if the distribution amongst the 193 sections would be fairly even, but, as mentioned above, there would likely instead be a small number of very populated sections accompanied by many barely populated sections. So this actually ends up being a point in favor of name sectioning as the distribution will be more even, and if we wanted more sections we could always divide the 26 alphabet letters using ranges (e.g., AA-AM AN-AZ, BA-BM BN-BZ, etc). --Andomedium (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

We could divide oversized country sections the same way though (e.g., United States A-M, United States N-Z, etc) --Andomedium (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

If we section by name, the alphabetization of the names becomes a much more serious issue.

This wouldn't be a problem if all of the names on the list were of the same format and time period, but there are currently many different formats from many different time periods and each name would need to be carefully analyzed to determine which segment(s) should be given prominence when alphabetizing.--Andomedium (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, I was sort of hoping to find more points to support sectioning by name, because, while it may be fitting to section a list of Olympic athletes or world leaders by country, it doesn't seem quite so fitting to section a list of vegetarians this way.

In any case, it looks like sectioning by country probably offers a little bit more than sectioning by name so I guess we'll go with country for now. I can always re-build the list at a later date using name sectioning if there turns out to be good enough reason to do so. --Andomedium (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 Improvements

On July 5th, if there are no objections, I intend to improve the page using this format. The format is almost the same as that currently used by the List of vegans, which will likely soon be modified to match this format.
If you have any questions or suggestions, please post them here. Thank you :) --Andomedium (talk) 22:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

• The whole image/no images debate on the vegans RfC thing aside, the place holder images had to go (WP:IPH), and the non-free images have to go too. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Steve Jobs was not a vegetarian

His official biography Steve Jobs (book) he mentions he went through various phases for health reasons. For a time he only ate fruit. Page 1155 shows near the end of his life, he was eating eggs. He also ate fish, and whatnot. And when his first daughter lived with him, the book says he took her out to get chicken at times. So I removed him from the list of vegetarians. Please don't readd him. Dream Focus 02:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There are conflicting claims about his status which is why his entry is tagged as "disputed", so I have restored his name to the list. It is not our place as editors to make judgment calls like that, but to simply represent the evidence either way. If you have further information then the appropriate response would be to add a note and clarify matters. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The information shows he was a vegetarian for years, for health reasons, up to that point. He then switched over to eating eggs for their pure high protein source, as his doctors suggested, etc. Should we list he was a "sometimes vegetarian"? Did he ever publicly state he was or was not? Dream Focus 13:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, first of all eating eggs doesn't make you not vegetarian, since the vegetarian diet permits them. Second of all, this isn't a list of people who currently are vegetarian, it is a list of people who are vegetarian, who were vegetarian but stopped, and people who might possibly have been vegetarian. In the latter two cases we mark their entries as former or disputed to retain neutrality in the matter, because ultimately it is not up to us decide if someone was vegetarian or not. If it's complicated you can add a note (see the Hitler entry for example). I haven't seen the book, all I see are two contradictory sources, which is why his entry is tagged as disputed. If you could quote the relevant bits verbatim then maybe that might clear up the matter. Basically this is the case as I see it: if he was never vegetarian at all at any point in his life he doesn't belong on the list, but if he was then he does. If he started eating eggs that doesn't preclude his vegetarian status, if he started eating fish then he should be marked as a 'former' vegetarian. If his biography doesn't make it clear one way or the other it is best to leave him on the list as a 'disputed' vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 14:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It says its a list of vegetarians, not former vegetarians. If he wasn't a vegetarian in the last years of his life, then he shouldn't be listed as one. If the man believed in anything, he would've said so in interviews. I'm searching around for a statement from him, but not finding it yet. Dream Focus 15:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how the list works; it's called a "list of vegetarians", not a "list of current vegetarians". Just like the List of Presidents of the United States (which includes former presidents), anyone who has been vegetarian at some point in their life is eligible to be covered on a list of vegetarians. Just imagine how absurd it would be if we included someone who was only vegetarian for the final year of their life, but omitted someone who was vegetarian for their whole life except in their final year. We are documenting vegetarianism, so anyone who has held vegetarian status at some point in their life is eligible to be covered in a neutral manner on a list of vegetarians. Betty Logan (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a difference in a belief system, and a held position. For example, if someone changed their religion in the last stages of their life, then we'd list them as being a member of that religion not their old one. Choosing to be a vegetarian, or fruitarian, at one stage in his life, doesn't mean he was still one later on. He ate fish and he loved eating eels. You are not a vegetarian if you eat fish and eels. Holding a position such as president of a nation, is totally different unrelated thing. Dream Focus 16:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that distinction at all. If someone stops being vegetarian their vegetarianism doesn't cease to be notable as per WP:RECENT. If they stop then we mark them as a former vegetarian; it's a neutral approach to documenting someone's beliefs and practices which may have changed over time. Betty Logan (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

18 fictional people in the list

Why would fictional characters be on the list with all the real people? Dream Focus 02:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess someone added them because they thought they would qualify under the criteria, since the list isn't limited to living people. Personally I don't have any strong feelings about their inclusion either way. I haven't removed them because generally I'm an inclusionary editor so I don't delete content unless I am sure it will not inform someone's understanding of the topic. Generally I think including fictional characters adds little information value to the list, but I suppose on one level it reflects the cultural presence of vegetarianism. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Listing why they were vegetarians is important

What good is the list without a section listing the reason someone became a vegetarian? Health, religious, personal moral belief system, because their super hot girlfriend made them, etc. Whatever the reasons are, it should be listed there. Dream Focus 02:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the list is good for what it claims to do: it tells you if someone is or has been vegetarian. However, I am in agreement that it could be improved in this direction, and there is a notes section so adding extra information is easily facilitated. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Einstein’s second wife fed him his favorite food, sausages with potatoes, virtually everyday for lunch.

Einstein’s second wife fed him his favorite food, sausages with potatoes, virtually everyday for lunch. http://drmarymd.com/articles/the-theory-of-im-craving-sausage-what-was-that-again/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 03:34, 30 May 2012‎ (UTC)

Conversely, we have this quote: "Although I have been prevented by outward circumstances from observing a strictly vegetarian diet, I have long been an adherent to the cause in principle. Besides agreeing with the aims of vegetarianism for aesthetic and moral reasons, it is my view that a vegetarian manner of living by its purely physical effect on the human temperament would most beneficially influence the lot of mankind." Translation of letter to Hermann Huth, December 27, 1930. Einstein Archive 46-756 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.87.105.169 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Alphabetization

As previously mentioned, this list has names of many different formats, from many different regions and time periods.
In order to alphabetize the list properly, there are too many guidelines involved.
Not too many guidelines for a static list but too many guidelines for an ever-growing list that is receiving contributions from many different people.
Additionally, the majority of English Wikipedia readers are monolingual English speakers for whom the unfamiliar, complex alphabetization may be more confusing than helpful. I propose that we alphabetize the list as though the names are text strings rather than names of people, starting from the beginning of the name, regardless of what may be at the beginning of the name (including honorifics and anything else).
Example:
14th Dalai Lama
A. P. J. Abdul Kalam
Aang
H. G. Wells
Jacques-Henri Bernardin de Saint-Pierre
KRS-One
Lee Ha-nui
RZA
Saint Hilarion
Sir Richard Phillips
The Giving Tree Band
Zhu Bajie

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andomedium (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Create portal and navboxes for vegetarians

Hello vegetarians here. I'ld suggest to make a clickable list of vegetarians. What I mean. If say I open a page like EINSTEIN, I should see on the bottom - that EINSTEIN is in the list of vegetarians. So there might be some new NAVBOX, and maybe even VEGETARIANISM PORTAL. Good idea? (And probably similarly this can be made for other people as well: navbox for list of geniuses, navbox for saints, navbox for greatest philosophers etc etc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.1.60 (talk) 06:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and it is a good suggestion. But we already have a category for them "category:Vegetarians". It would be enough, when used appropriately. (A category can be seen at the bottom of the page (by default) in a separate column.)

But now, this is category not placed in all vegetarian articles. We should place it on them. (You can also place them yourself). ···Vanischenu^「m/_Talk」 08:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Re move to "List of people claimed to be vegetarian"

Not all of the people on here are confirmed vegetarians. Per WP:V and WP:BLP, we should either remove the unconfirmed entries or retitle the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The issue is verifiability, not one of fact or confirmation, since it would be impossible to factually corroborate any person's diet. In the case of each and every entry there is a source identifying them as vegetarian (rather than as people who 'claim to be vegetarian'), so the title of the article is consistent with WP:LISTNAME. In a minority of cases some of these claims are challenged by other reliable sources so counter claims are are included to give equal WP:WEIGHT, but that has little bearing on the scope and nature of the list; it's just a question of getting the balance right. Betty Logan (talk) 17:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggested "claimed to be vegetarian" (without specifying who makes the claim), not "claim (themselves) to be vegetarian." That would be more accurate, as the sources claim they are vegetarians, while the current title implies that they themselves self-identify.

Would you be opposed to having the disputed and former vegetarians moved to their own section in the article, to better emphasize that who did not remain vegetarian and who may not be vegetarian? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Moving them to their own section would certainly be preferable to renaming the article, and in fact this is what has already been done at List of vegans, so it would at least make the articles uniform. I was actually intending on doing it here eventually once I completed renovating the vegans article; if you want to jump in and do that then I have no objections. Betty Logan (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability indeed

This list appears to be advocacy gone mad. Aristotle, a "vegetarian (disputed)"?

From that table entry there are two direct ref links. One web page simply references the other for proof. The other web page doesn't offer any proof. Between them both just say "well he was a thinker, and all right-thinkers are vegetarians, so..." These refs should be embarrassing.

There is a link to a footnote, which opens with "It is not clear if Aristotle was a vegetarian." and references three more link refs, one which repeats a statement of Aristotle's belief which strongly tends away from the assertion, and the second ref (what I can see on Google books) directly asserts that "(nature) has made all animals for the sake of man", and the last ref says, quoting an advocate, "A second line of reasoning that Aristotle pursued to deny that we have ethical duties to animals was that...".

So nothing linked or ref'd says Aristotle was a vegetarian. Rather they dissuade from that idea. That is hardly grounds for adding the name to the list and then qualifying it with a "(disputed)". You have someone that from all citations was so very unlikely to be vegetarian that to include his name here is... advocacy gone mad.

BTW: I came here because of someone who cited this list as reason to add vegetarianism categories to a few dozen articles about people, even though the articles themselves said nothing on the matter. This list encourages advocacy.

Unwarranted extravagances like this will only bring you distrust and perhaps disrepute. Please do clean up this list. Shenme (talk) 06:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone could be claimed to be a vegetarian, and then just put the disputed tag there to keep their name from being removed. There are even people listed as "former" vegetarians. And of course, it doesn't list why people are vegetarians, be it for animal rights, or just health reasons. Dream Focus 12:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

That would be an abuse of the "disputed" tag. Entries should only be tagged in this manner if there are RS backing up opposing claims. It cannot be used to cover an entry where the vegetarian claim is not backed up by a credible source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've pulled Aristotle since the the only source claimining he was vegetarian was a restaurant guide. I agree in the case of historical figures the claim should come from scholars. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Why I removed Jesus and John the Baptist

Luke 24:41-43 features Jesus eating fish. The sources claiming Jesus was a vegetarian include:

• "Famous Vegetarians" - Partisan advocacy instead of scholarly examination
• "Counscious eating" - Partisan, not scholarly
• "Lost Christianities" - A complete misrepresentation of what Ehrman wrote, Ehrman writes that Jesus was against sacrifice, not meat-eating.
• Elmundo.com, which also features the article "ISLAM - Invasion of the uterus." Seems about as neutral as Stormwatch.
• "Food for the Gods" - More propaganda from Pythagorean Publishers
• "Diet for Transcendence" - a New Age publication, not a scholarly work.
• "International Vegetarian Union" - Advocacy site.
• Jesusveg.com - Advocacy site.

With the exception of Ehrman (who is misquoted to the point where I cannot assume both honesty or competence from whoever added that reference), none of those sources are academic. If anyone tried to use sources similar to the non-Ehrman sources at the Jesus article, they would be laughed at and dismissed for pushing WP:FRINGE claims. Then there's the Bible verse where Jesus ate fish. In the absence of sources supporting even a disputed claim, and in the presence of a source indicating that Jesus probably ate fish, I'm removing that entry.

As for John the Baptist: per R.T. France, "The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text," as cited in The Diet of John the Baptist: "Locusts and Wild Honey" in Synoptic and Patristic Interpretation, p. 21, by James A. Kelhoffer (Mohr Siebeck, 2005): "There is no basis in Greek usage for the traditional notion (born no doubt of Western squimishness) that the word [ακρίδες] refers to the carob or 'locust'-bean (hence called 'St. John's bread')." Kelhoffer also notes that C.S. Mann in affirms this in a commentary on Mark as well. An academic source trumps a partisan advocacy source (which was all that was cited for John the Baptist in this article), per WP:GEVAL. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm going to go through and remove the six partisan sources I've IDed above, and any claims sourced only to them (but not those sourced to RSes as well, of course). Wikipedia is not an advocacy site, so we aren't going to carry out those New-Age publishers' advocacy for them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record I was against the inclusion of Jesus because I was unhappy with the quality of sourcing. In fact I have voiced my concerns at Talk:List_of_vegans#Neutrality about the dependency on vegetarian advocacy sources, and would prefer to see a shift away from them towards secondary sources independent of the AR movement. As for John the Baptist, his status as a vegetarian seems to be an open-ended question with scholars coming down on either side. There is a whole book devoted to the question at [2], so his entry should probably be tagged as disputed. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I really get the impression that the main reason that Kelhoffer brings up vegetarianism is to dismiss it while documenting that it was a traditional belief.

He states on p. 21 "A common bias," (against locusts and for locust-beans) "...is the European prejudice against eating insects" (citing R.T. France, with the quote I give above in a footnote) and that the first modern author who tried to argue for locust-beans "does not offer a compelling argument concerning the diet of the historical Baptist" (also p.21). He then goes on to point out the flaws in the arguments by later locust-bean scholars and dismisses them. The rest of the material that follows assumes that the vegetarian interpretaton is incorrect. P. 27 notes that the Dead Sea Scrolls are rather explicit that locusts were eaten as food by the sort of ascetics John belonged to.

Over the next few chapters, Kelhoffer discusses the vegetarian interpretation, concluding on pp.195-196 that there are multiple problems with this interpretation:

• "The failure to distinguish between the different meanings that this diet had for the historical Baptist"
• "the lack of argument for why a particular interpretation is compelling to the exclusion of other possibilities"
• failure when handling extra-Biblical evidence "to specify why these witnesses commend a particular interpretation."

In chapter two he finds plenty of evidence that locusts were common food in the ancient near east, that the poor, the ascetic, and even nobles ate them, that Jewish authors never question whether or not locusts are kosher but only what kinds of locusts are kosher.

However, I'd be a little more comfortable including John the Baptist in the disputed section if there was something in one of the columns about "traditionally considered vegetarian, but modern scholarship mostly concludes otherwise." Ian.thomson (talk) 20:03, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes he questions the authenticity of the claim, but he does so in the context of an open debate on the subject. I'm not convinced modern scholarly analysis has decided against the notion he was vegetarian, since he also cites two 20th century scholars who come to the opposite conclusion. Ultimately if the debate exists then it's not our place to make judgments about the validity of the claims; if they make it into scholarly journals and books by reputable academics then they are eligible to be included here. However, I have no objection to clarifying the stances of various academics with a note as we do with some of the other complicated cases like with Hitler. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Removing a questionable source

Someone recently removed an entry sourced to the International Vegetarian Union, and I have to agree with the removal. The entry on that site reads "Sachin Tendulkar, India, Criketer; source: His achiements."

What the hell does "source: His achiements" even mean? Are they trying to say that because he's a "Criketer" in India, he must be vegetarian? By that (inane lack of) reasoning, Malcolm X, being an African-American preacher, must've been Christian! Heck, that would at least make more statistical sense.

I also see that this is cited to say of Charles Darwin that "There were, however, quotes stating his support towards animal rights," after a bit explaining how there's no evidence he gave up meat. That's little more than WP:OR to assert that he must've been vegetarian because he didn't abuse animals, and poor original research at that. By that same (lack of) logic, vegetarians are only vegetarians because they have an irrational hated for plants.

I'm going to remove all IVU sources and entries sourced only to IVU, because even if they have editorial oversight, it's too incompetent and biased to be reliable. If someone is planning on citing IVU for sources IVU cites, they should just cut out the middle man and cite those sources instead.

Looking through, Happy Cow appears to be user-generated, and they're affiliated with IVU at any rate. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

implicit vegans

When an ancient Chinese Buddhist is said to be vegetarian in ancient texts, it's implicit that he or she is vegan since there was no concept of lacto- or ovo-vegetarian at the time. Still, the sources don't explicitly say that they're vegan. Should those be moved to the vegan list? Kayau (talk · contribs) 02:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They sometimes eat honey with their rice at Buddhist temples. So they can't be vegan. We go by what the reliable sources say anyway. Dream Focus 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DF. Remember, the goal of Wikipedia is verifiability, so even if we know someone is in fact a vegan, we still need a source for the claim. It's not like their inclusion on this list is wrong anyway, veganism is just a stronger condition. Betty Logan (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess you're right, calling them vegans would violate WP:SYNTH. I'll continue adding them to this list. Kayau (talk · contribs) 09:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

David Duchovny

In the case of David Duchovny, neither of the sources in this edit state that he used to be or stopped being a vegetarian. The early source describes him as "vegetarian" and the later source describes him as "pescetarian". Since pesecetarians are often described as "vegetarian" we cannot draw a conclusion that he was a vegetarian and became a pescetarian. WP:SYNTHESIS states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Therefore according to our own policies, we need a source that explicitly says he stopped being vegetarian or used to be vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Images of women

I don't really want to get involved in editing this article, but I'd like to express concern about the images of women wearing little clothing in this version. We had a similar situation at List of vegans where someone kept restoring Pamela Anderson in a bikini. I also don't think it's a good idea to start the article with an image of a Playmate of the Year (however dressed), when there are lots of women in academia, the professions, business and politics who are vegetarians. It would be good if the editors maintaining the page would give the images some consideration from that perspective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves the Pamela Anderson one was chosen because it was a PETA promotion rather than because she was in a bikini, so it was thematically relevant. Should we also remove the scantily clad figure skater too for showing some skin? Ideally there should be a balance across men and women, ethnicities and nationalities, ages, and the professions, and while that includes female academics it also includes Playboy centerfolds. I also think it is better when the pictures show them in context, like a singer singing, or Martina playing tennis, and yes an underwear model in her underwear, otherwise we just have a gallery of faces and there is nothing inherently interesting in that. The list ideally should show that vegetarians come from all walks of life, and showing the person "at work" helps to capture that effect. The list has a bias towards the entertainment industry simply because they are more photographed, and all the images have to be in the public domain since all images are effectively replaceable so would fail fair use criteria. And if we can show a good looking guy with huge muscles or a pretty woman with huge jugs then why not? It helps demonstrate there are no adverse physical effects of being vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Pamela Anderson bikini shot used to be the first image in the lead, followed by a Canadian Playmate of the Year. [3] You then moved the Anderson bikini image to List of vegans. [4] There are currently 13 images of women in this article. Of those, 3 are of "Playmates," 1 is an erotic dancer and porn star, and 1 is a glamour model. So 5 out of 13 are of women whose claim to fame involves removing their clothes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The ordering I believe used to reflect the ordering of the countries, so the two Canadian women came top, and now should probably be reordered alphabetically. I am happy to do that, and if you indicate where you would like section breaks I would be happy to add those too. I also disagree that an erotic dancer "takes off her clothes". She is a skilled professional, and has a dress code in the same capacity that a ballerina has. If you can find images that would extend our visual demographic then feel free to replace a couple of the Playboy Playmates since they are over-represented, but I feel we should retain one since I don't think women should be inherently valued less as role models just because of their choice of career. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've swapped some of the images of women to remove the focus on porn. The list of images now begins with Christine Lagarde, director general of the International Monetary Fund, rather than Jayde Nicole, a Playboy Playmate of the Year. I've also rearranged them so that it's female, male, female, rather than bunching several of the images of women together. I know that was inherited from the article having country sections, and the list of images followed that alphabetical listing, but there's no need to stick to that now the sections have gone.

I see the names in the captions aren't linked, there are full stops after the captions (which aren't sentences), and sometimes ordinary words in captions are linked and sometimes not, so those issues should be fixed too at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored one of the Playboy bunnies since I don't think it is representative to remove all three to replace with women from professions that are already represented. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have a single "Playboy bunny" or porn actress. We have other actresses in the list. Please add an image of a male porn star if you want porn to be represented. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If we had a male porn star on the list I would add it! I have conceded to the removal of two Playboy Playmate, but getting rid of all three just to replace with another actress is clearly agenda driven editing. Each profession only needs to be represented once. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability good. Statistical representation, not so much.

Decisions about editorial content should be about policy, not prejudice against a particular profession. PETA campaigns around the idea that "I'd rather wear nothing" than wear fur, and related campaigns against eating animals have successfully linked supermodels and porn actors in myriad reliable sources. One may not like this. One may even detest it. But one should not violate policy over it. Please see this representative sampling of news stories, spanning the period from January 31, 2011 through February 16, 2012:

PETA's Controversial New Super Bowl Ad, The Huffington Post, 31 January 2011
Martineau, Chantal, PETA Stops Being Coy About Its Veggie Porn, Promises To Go Pro With .XXX Site, The Village Voice, 24 August 2011
White, Madeleine, PETA to launch porn website: Is this still about animal rights?, The Globe and Mail, 10 September 2012
Walzer, Phillip, PETA plans 'erotica' website to promote cause, The Virginian-Pilot, 20 September 2011
Caulfield, Phillip, PETA hopes to launch pornography site, PETA.XXX, to promote veganism, The Daily News, 20 September 2011
Kelly, Tara, PETA's Porn Website To Promote Vegetarian Message, The Huffington Post, 21 September 2011
Vergakis, Brock, PETA plans porn website to promote message, Associated Press, 21 September 2011
Roberts, Hannah, He'll be able to bring it like a tantric porn star': Controversial PETA ad claims going vegan may make you so good in bed you'll INJURE your girlfriend, Daily Mail, 16 February 2012. (Warning to the squeamish: This one's in very bad taste, but it's still from a reliable source.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 May 2013

What these sources document is that PETA is using erotic memes in PR campaigns. (The http://peta.xxx website does not actually include any porn, but videos of animal cruelty. The address redirects to a peta.org page which says, NOW THAT WE HAVE YOUR ATTENTION We know that there's more to life than sex and that you have multiple interests. Now it's time to see a few PETA videos considered so "hardcore" and so "offensive" that no TV stations have dared to run them. PETA believes that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. At PETA, we use every available opportunity to share this message—we always have and always will. For many animals, it means the difference between life and death. Learn more about PETA at peta.org.) What these sources do not document is that reliable sources focus a quarter of their coverage of female vegetarians on porn stars, erotic dancers or glamour models. They simply don't. --Andreas JN466 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk of "a quarter of their coverage" means we're talking past one another. I'm talking about notability as measured by coverage in reliable sources. It's clear we disagree, at a very basic level. I fear we're simply re-iterating our differences now, shedding more heat than light. Please feel free to have the last word in this section. I'll not prolong a debate that is now properly resolved by the community, having read, and re-read, new iterations of the same points. David in DC (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought someone said we had three images of women working in adult entertainment, out of a total of 13 images of women. That"s near as dammit a quarter. Feel free to correct me on the maths, if the numbers have changed. Andreas JN466 15:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi

Totally unrelated to the current debate. I corrected the caption for Gandhi. It's a common mistake, but Mahatma was not his name. It was Mohandas. Mahatma is a title.

However, I can't find him in this list, nor in the list of vegans. If we have a source, he should be in one list or the other. If we don't, his picture should come out. I'll start looking. It's a pretty glaring omission. I'm sure he was one or the other, but have no source for either. If someone knows and can beat me to the punch, I'll be most grateful. David in DC (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the International Vegetarian Union saying that he was vegetarian and he also gave a speech to the London Vegetarian Society in 1931 entitled The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Helpsome (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)According to Louis Fischer's The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (London:Harper Collins, 1997, p.40 - sorry, I can't help the title!), he was on the board of the Vegetarian Society of England. On first arriving in England, it says, he was unable to eat properly until he found a vegetarian restaurant. According to p. 39, he had vowed to his mother before she died never to eat meat or eggs. He also didn't drink milk until a doctor advised him to in 1918, after which he drank goat's milk "up to his last supper" (p. 203-4). Thanks for a handy bit of work avoidance. Formerip (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a book with the same name issue, but it's a good source so I used it. I found the 1931 speech reproduced in a literary journal. It wouldn't be kosher as a stand alone ref, but it's allowed to back one up. If someobne wants to swap out my book for a better one, please feel free. I just wanted to get the name in the list with an appropriate ref. It seemed odd to have the pic but not a list entry. If the RfC is closed by deleting all pics, I sure didn't want to lose he reference to Gandhi. It's be sort of like having a list Method actors without Brando David in DC (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple solution - randomize it

Rather than spend all of this time debating, why not just let a computer solve this for us?? Seriously! We could easily write an algorithm that would choose 24 or 48 or .. whatever... random bios from a pool - then the editors would add those to the article. We could re-run this same algorithm once a year or once every 6 months, to circulate people around. That completely eliminates any bias whatsoever in favor of anything whatsoever- male/female/pornstar/prime minister/whatever - yes perhaps "less" famous people would be chosen, but is that really that big of a deal? Seriously, just randomize it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can images be randomized on Wikipedia? If images could be drawn from a randomized pool that would be great, providing everyone's image would be eligible. Could that be automated, because if I did it by drawing names out of a hat and a "porn star" came out, I think Slim would file a complaint with the Gambling Commission. Betty Logan (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

If technically possible, I think the randomization solution proposed here is perfect. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Forget technology, you could do this with a pair of dice! Ok here's an easy way: you start with the list of all vegetarians. Someone Uploads that list to a google doc that gives each one a number from 1-xxx. Then you go to a random Number generator website and ask for 25 unique numbers in that range. That gives you The selection of articles. Then, editors manually add those photos to the list. Every 3 months, you repeat. That way, over time, all vegetarians will get their chance in the sun - you could do the same at the list of vegans. the only bias in this method would be it would tend to preference categories of bios where we have *more* bios - so if we Have 2 women doctors and 100 women actresses, more actresses will be chosen than doctors. To get around this, you could randomize Around a list that has randomly filled but equal subsets for each job type - but it seems like overkill. To ensure Repeatability, you could find a RNG that takes a seed and use the current date in a given format as the seed - that way There would be no question of gaming the system - everyone could generate the numbers from the privacy Of their home and get the same result.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

For example, you could use this one: number generator - we could use the month/day/year as the seed - e.g. 04082013 which gives us a the following list 198 395 122 319 046 238 436 162 359 086 283 010 207 399 126 323 050 247 445 171 368 090 287 014 211 409 135 332 059 251 449 175 372 099 296 023 220 413 139 336 (parameters: 40 numbers, no duplicates, ranging from 1-471). Any of you, using the same seed, will get the same list of numbers, so no-one can game it. Now, we just assign each person in our list a number, and now we have the list of photos - the first four (198, 395, 122 and 319) from my excel import are Jeff Beck, Ruben Studdard, Elton John and Michael Imperioli). Easy! If you want to ensure a better spread, just set up a google docs that mirrors the list, but sort it by gender and job - for example, you could put all of the "celebrity" types in one grouping, and the others in another grouping - then you do separate random draws from each grouping (e.g. pick 10 women non-celebrities, 10 women-celebrities, 10 men non-celebrities, 10 men-celebrities). (celebrities = actors, models, musicians, sports heroes) - everyone else would be in the non-celebrities grouping - for the purposes of this draw. The names should be in alphabetical order, so there aren't disputes over *that* either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That works quite well. Having a pre-set date seed means that the numbers can be verified, and if we use the list as it stands 00:01 on a specified day then there can be no disputes over which version of list is used. The order is alphabetical, but it doesn't really matter, because if you just copy the list over as it stands on the pre-set day into excel each name still has an equal chance of coming up. I don't think we need to break it down into groups, because if you update regularly enough a randomized selection should converge on equal repreentation for each person on the list over a few years. Updating it quarterly sounds like too much of a hassle, updating it annually is not frequent enough, so every six months seems like a good frequency. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Serenity now!

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.

---

"I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The censors may come individually, or in strength. They may even appear in the form of our own editors."

Should the most famous vegetarian of all time, Serenity, be featured with an image in this list?

Survey

• Of course - pron stars are WP:NOTCENSORED, so for the good of the internet and Wikipedia we must protect Serenity's featured position in this list. To do otherwise would sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids surrender our integrity to those who would sooner give up freedom than defend persecuted vegetarian porn stars. Kaldari (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Serenity's image on the list, contingent on the outcome of the other RFC above. A porn star is an interesting choice for this list, since being a sex worker is often equated with a lack of morality so it's interesting to represent somebody from such a background undertaking an ethical decision. Also, I just think Wikipedia should resist the media trend of whitewashing sex workers out of public view, because I think it contributes to a wider problem of dehumanising such women which leads to the abuses and violations against them being largely ignored by society. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with having a porn star in the list, but they should at least be famous. Having a porn star for the sake of having a porn star seems silly. Kaldari (talk) 17:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem I have with the "famous" argument is that it is heavily biased towards celebrities, and possibly Westerns celebrities. At the end of the day, WIkipedia only really distinguishes between notable and non-notable. Two reasonable alternative proposals have been put forward: one editor suggested only images of list members who have engaged in vegetarian activism; another is to have regular randomized selections, which I suppose removed all editorial bias whatseover, and only retains any bias the list itself has. I am ok with both of those for the record, but I do believe that porn stars should be eligible under whichever solution is adopted. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• Comment OK, here's the problem: I agree with the two "keeps" above and think Kaldari's edit to the article, and especially the wording of this RfC, are about as pointy as edits come. However, they are also the funniest and, in a very important way, most mature and adult bit of argumentation I've ever seen in one of these wiki-brouhahas. For me, the most certain marker of adulthood is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I also never trust a person without a sense of humor. And, being old enough to get the George C. Scott/bodily fluids line without the illustration, I genuinely laughed out loud when I read it. Thank you, Kaldari, for bringing a sense of perspective to this kerfuffle. You're wrong on the merits, but so right in your approach that I can only tip my virtual cap with a smile. David in DC (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• strong randomize these debates are really inane. You have a list that is inclusive - everyone is on it. Then you have a smaller list, which is exclusive - fewer people can join. We have no criteria for inclusion on that smaller list, just differing points of view and vague notions of 'notability' and 'representation'. This is coupled with higher-than-average visibility for playboy playmates since that is the world we live in - if you look at people magazine it is mostly filled with celebrities - actors, musicians, models, playboy bunnies - not doctors, lawyers, plumbers. The only way out of this mess of a discussion is to just let the universe decide - get a pseudorandom number generator, agree on a method for determination of the seed, then randomize - editors would then follow the resultant list. Every 3 - 6 months you do it again, for a whole new list. Do you really think a stable set of images can be arrived at in another way? I'm not feeling it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2013 (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.

Fictional Characters...?

Why on earth are they in here?? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Fictional characters don't belong here. Helpsome (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

They were added by Kayau, the list's "steward". I've never been overly keen on their inclusion but it never bothered me to the extent of initiating their removal. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem someone is being bold and taking them away. I am happy with that. Fictional Characters do not meet the criteria for this article. If however there was an article for fictional vegetarians I am sure that would be fine.... -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion, I removed the rest of the characters listed as fictional. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Krishna and Rama are still listed. Kaldari (talk) 03:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Rama was considered a real historical figure, not god, in medieval India, and may well be a real person: see http://www.historicalrama.com/ Shii (tock) 00:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Images of women

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.

---

The RfC has been closed by the bot. I've asked on WP:AN/RFC for an uninvolved editor to sum up consensus. [5]

Responses

The question was: "Should this article contain images of women porn stars?"

• Keep: Betty Logan, A Quest For Knowledge ("display images of people most recognizable to our readers, and/or people most recognizable as vegetarians"), Morbidthoughts, MisterShiney, Guy1890, Kww, Ignatzmice (or remove all), David in DC, GoodeOldeboy, Martin Hogbin
• Remove: SlimVirgin, CarolMooreDC, Formerip, Cailil (use only images of famous vegetarians), Sonicyouth86, Kaldari (most or all, "only include pictures of the most notable people on the list"), Montanabw, Andreas (Jayen466), NickCT (or remove all), Figureofnine
• Reduce number of porn star images: WikiSkeptic ("Keep Moakler"), North8000
• Remove all images (not only porn stars): GeorgeLouis, RightCowLeftCoast, Ibadibam, Abhayakara, Arms & Hearts, Davey2010
• Remove all images and start again: (czar ("only add ... images ... that are related to or illustrative of vegetarians")
• Randomize (all images): Obi-Wan Kenobi

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Should this article contain images of women porn stars?

The article has 42 images of notable vegetarians running down the side. Thirteen of these are of women. Until recently, six of the 13 were of porn actresses or Playmates of the Year, several in bikinis, all added I believe by Betty Logan. The article led with an image of Jayde Nicole, a Playboy Playmate of the Year. [6] Previously, it led with Pamela Anderson in a bikini, followed by Jayde Nicole. [7]

The image of Pamela Anderson was earlier moved to List of vegans. Of the remaining five, I today began the process of swapping them for images of women in the professions and academia if I can find them, or mainstream singers and actresses. The article now leads with Christine Lagarde, director general of the International Monetary Fund.

However, Betty Logan believes some of the images of porn stars should remain, and is reverting when I remove them. I'm therefore asking for consensus to remove them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The images in question in the article are:

1. File:Jodie Marsh crop.jpg, Jodie Marsh, a British glamour model.
2. File:Shanna Moakler, Playboy Mansion.JPG, Shanna Moakler, an American model crowned Miss USA 1995 and Playboy Playmate in 2001.
3. File:Actress Serenity.jpg, Serenity (entertainer), an American erotic dancer and pornographic actress.

Only one of the three women have been involved in porn. The images are all tasteful, and I do not believe they should be removed from the article purely due to their choice of profession. It is not Wikipedia's job to provide role models. I believe the gallery should have a wide demographic, and the reality is that adult entertainment and the sex industry are a large employer of women. In view of this I think it is fair that women who work within these industries have some representation. I don't see the point of removing these images and replacing them with more images of mainstream actresses and pop stars, when they are already represented. I believe that if SlimVirgin wants to add more images the article would be better served by removing images of duplicate professions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• NOTE: An editor has put forward an alternative proposal at Talk:List of vegetarians#A simple solution - randomize it. It seems like a solution most consistent with WP:NPOV, but has arrived at the debate a bit late in the day. I believe the RFC closer should still take it into account though.

Survey

• Remove the images of female porn stars. If editors want the porn industry to be represented visually, an image of a male porn star can be found instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are you making an WP:UNDUE argument? That female porn stars are overrepresented already so there should be examples of other professions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is no reason in an article of this kind to focus on photographs of female porn stars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if if UNDUE applies to the photos, but if it were to apply the pictures should favour those who are more notable as a vegetarian. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Unless it's someone so famous they have their own article and have made it a major part of their identity as reported by WP:RS. Prurient interest on wikipedia is just so silly. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone on the list has their own article, and how would you define a "major part of their identity"? Are you advocating the removal of everyone who hasn't been involved in vegtarian activism, because the porn star and the Playboy Play Mate have taken part in PETA campaigns. There are famous dead people on the list that never took part in nay form of vegetarian activism. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to have two rabbis in the gallery and for a porn star to be barred. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome to remove one or both rabbis. And if you want a porn star, as I said, you can look for a man. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If we had any male porn stars on the list I would include them. But thanks for admitting this is part of an agenda, and nothing to do with having a representative gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. No-one whose primary notability is for porn should have their image used in this type of article. Please can we get a grip. Formerip (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you further clarify your response. When you mean porn do you actually mean porn, or are you implying glamor models, erotic dancers etc? I'm not being funny here, but only one of the images up for removal is of a porn actress. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll answer the question as given in the RfC: Yes I don't see what a person's occupation has to do with being a vegetarian. We shouldn't discriminate based on someone's profession. I would think, that the best way to handle this, would be to display images of people most recognizable to our readers, and/or people most recognizable as vegetarians. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have the right rule-of-thumb, but a logical non sequitur. Porn actresses may be highly recognisable to some of our readers, but they are indistinguishable one from another for most of our readers. That's why they should not be used. Formerip (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Recognizability is problematic, since it would be heavily biased towards celebrities and people living in English-speaking countries. People who have actively engaged in vegetarian activism I can go along with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. Rather than recognisability, I would say salience. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You're assuming facts not entered as evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, why is there a picture of Frankenstein's monster in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add that I don't see what a person's gender has to do with this list or showing a picture of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see the point of these lists and especially galleries that are not relevant (are they pics of people eating or promoting a vegetarian lifestyle?) but wikipedia is not censored and this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Given the society that we now live in where women such as glamour models, provide a role model - like it or not- for young women, they are a key part of the article. To clarify, every day women who read the tabloids know of these women and as such are probably more interested and it provides a point of reference for them, as opposed to people like "Christine Lagarde, French director general of the International Monetary Fund" and "Jane Goodall, a British primatologist." Who people have no idea who they are. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Is there is policy-based argument that I missed in your comment? I doubt that women are the main audience interested in female porn actors and your theory about young women appears far-fetched. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy for their removal? No. Didn't think so. As another editor has already pointed out it is a clear case of one editor not liking it. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. WP:UNDUE as part of WP:NPOV. There is no evidence that almost 50% of female vegetarians are porn actors or nude models. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, who doesn't know who Jane Goodall is? Nopomo (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No (remove them), and remove all of them. Dear God this list is a mess. It needs a lot of love. We can start by removing the images, which add nothing to the article, and by only adding images or content that are related to or illustrative of vegetarians. A picture of Frankenstein's monster with animals, or of Jodie Marsh or Serenity with a salad or at a demonstration (with a caption about why they are vegetarians worthy of caption) would be much more appropriate. (The list also needs to be formatted with a smaller ref column, pushing the page refs into the footnote itself.) I'd say more, but really the arbitrary illustrations of people who once told a reporter they don't eat meat is where this has to start. czar · · 22:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be ok with this, where vegetarianism is an explicit part of the image: File:Pamela Anderson 2.jpg? Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it were part of a gallery (possibly at the bottom of the page?) of other vegetarian-related pictures of notable vegetarians, yes. By itself or in that column, no (per reasoning above—gratuitous, undue weight). czar · · 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. However from my perspective none of the current images should be used either. Nobody who is famous and by the way also a vegetarian should be used. Images of people who are famous for being vegetarians, Linda McCartney for instance, would be a good choice (but currently commons doesn't have appropriate images of her). Christine Lagarde & all the other images - not so much--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:UNDUE. Also I'm concerned that the images are being used not as illustration but as a way to "prove 'em wrong" or, more precisely, to "tackle the perception" that vegetarianism causes "breasts to shrink". The vegetarianism article is the place to tackle that perception (if it exists). This list isn't the place to argue in favor of vegetarianism or advance a certain view by arranging specific images in a way that conveys a subtle or not so subtle message. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The proposed pictures are very tame indeed (compared to some of the other images that are available in Wikimedia Commons), and Wikipedia is obviously not censored. The suggestion that pictures of male porn stars would be "OK" in the article in question but female ones would not shows the silliness of the main argument proposed for deletion of the pictures that are in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It's the flip side of NPOV: porn stars are just as important as saints, nuns, and Presidents. Now the importance of a list based on somebody's diet is a completely different issue.—Kww(talk) 06:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Moakler. The problem is one of statistical bias. There are many highly visual pornography actresses, hence, one develops the idea that a significant percentage of women star in porn. Since in fact probably less than 1% of women are pornography actresses, only one photograph is "representative." 3 is too much . -WikiSkeptic (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi WikiSkeptic, as a matter of interest, why would we need even one in your view? I can understand having one in a list of (for the sake of argument) 1,000 images of women. But in a list of 13 images of women, why would even one need to be of a porn star? If the porn industry must for some reason be represented visually, could we not include it in the list of images of men? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Our attitude towards sex and sex work should be sex-neutral: i.e., we should neither be promoting nor attempting to hide sex, as we are neither pimps nor Victorian maidens. If List of Renowned Teachers was an article, we should not include a "teacher who participated in the world's greatest group sex act" unless that teacher was separately renowned, as that is attempting to infiltrate the category of renowned teachers with prurient content. However, if the article is List of People Who Died in the 2032 Mars Mining Disaster (obviously facetious title...) and one of the people happened to be a 4D Naked Video star, then of course we should not remove that person from the list because of their occupation. This article, 'list of vegetarians' is somewhat between the categories, but a person's participation in video nudity does not meaningfully disqualify them from vegetarianism. Moakler is fairly representative of the three, and apparently she just does nude modeling so draws a compromise category. Sorry for the long response; I'm waiting for a visa and bored~!!! hahaha -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but you didn't really address my point. In such a short list of images of women, why would even one need to be from the porn industry? That's what I'm curious about. Of all the professions, industries, careers, notability factors we could include, why would the porn industry have to figure, so that we must have at least one, and at one point had six, out of just 13 images? Why is porn star a "vital" profession when it comes to representations of women? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you got no answer to that one. Andreas JN466 02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you could turn that right back around: Why do we need a picture of a tennis player? a figure skater? an actress? a primatologist? Surely there are more professional porn stars than professional figure skaters. The only thing I can think of is you just don't like porn/porn stars (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and that's censorship. Ignatzmice•talk 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If there were someone who insisted on having six or at least three figure skaters in a list of 12 vegetarians, I would object too. Oddly though, that is far rarer than someone insisting on an undue number of bikini shots. Nor would anybody listen to such a person if they then claimed that figure skaters were being "censored." Get it? Glamour models are no different. Andreas JN466 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all of them. It is a list, not a collection of photos. They add nothing to the information. Photos are not meant to simply decorate an article. WP:BRD GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove, Either all the individuals should have their images (when available) included, or none of them. Why choose only certain individuals? Why not include all of them? If we're only going to include images of some individuals, than we should include no images of individuals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as per WikiSkeptic, or else remove all of them as per Czar and others. I don't see that the images add a whole lot to the article—but if there are to be any images, removing (non-erotic!) pictures of porn stars because "Eeew porn ick" is totally bogus. If you don't like the imbalance, add more pictures of non-porn stars. Ignatzmice•talk 17:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Who said porn stars were icky? The objection seems to be that it is unbalanced to represent women primary with porn stars. As to balancing it with more images, the list already includes too many images, IMO. And since porn stars represent less than 1% of notable women, we would have to add at least 600 images of women to make it balanced. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"And since porn stars represent less than 1% of notable women" Do you know that? I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of notable women on all of Wikipedia that are in the adult industry is significantly higher than the percentage of all women (in let's say just the total U.S. population for kicks) that are in the adult industry. One has to be notable in the first place to have a page on Wikipedia, and, of course, the super vast majority of people in the world aren't notable, which doesn't mean that they are bad people at all. The primary objection here has always appeared to be that there were any women from the adult industry (pictured or not) on this list, which does basically reduce down to an argument that "porn stars were icky". If the users that are primarily editing this list decide that they don't want any images of anyone, then fine, but excluding adult industry people from this list cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And also, why is this representation of women only being applied to "porn stars"? To put it another way, an estimated 500,000 women work in adult entertainment in the United States, I suspect a significantly higher number than those that are actresses, and yet we have three of those too. Or academics, or politicians. It seems to me if we are interested in representing women we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes. If we are interested in representing women engaged in the vegetarian movement, then PETA uses a disporportionate number of highly visible women such as actresses, pop stars, models and "porn stars". If we are only interested in representing women on this list, then there are several porn stars and adult models. Betty Logan (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

if we are interested in representing women we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes. Whoawhoawhoa, that's a little over the top there, yes? We can look for images of women from all sorts of professions, not stereotypically female professions. Ignatzmice•talk 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that point, but if the argument is that a Playboy centerfold is not "representative" of women then neither is a film star by the same rationale! In reality very few of the women in this list come from "representative" professions. What I named were some of the largest employment sectors for women and none of them are represented on our list, mainly because they are not notable. Representation becomes a completely nebulous concept in regards to notability. Betty Logan (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove most or all of them. I don't think they should be excluded purely due to their profession, but including 6 in the list is way too many and WP:UNDUE. I also think the list should only include pictures of the most notable people on the list, which probably wouldn't include any of the porn stars (but I could be wrong). Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove not only undue weight, but irrelevant. A few famous people of various professions may be suitable for the article, the only reason these are in is exploitative, as they are far fro the most famous or notable vegetarians. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove image stack entirely I won't comment on the above accusations of I don't like it or Advocacy, but the format as it exists now is not suitable for a stand-alone list. Either the images should be moved to the list entry for each person (Cf. List of Presidents of the United States), in which case every person would have an image, or there just shouldn't be images at all (Cf. List of Sri Lanka Tamils). Given the size of this list, I'd favor the latter. Ibadibam (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per Kaldari and Montanabw. Andreas JN466 02:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - I glanced back through the history. Looking at the the version of this page that existed before Slim started editing, I've got to agree with SlimVirgin that there seemed to be a weird and slightly perverse emphasis on adding pictures of porn stars/adult entertainment professionals/models to the list. There were definitely too many. Frankly, I'd try to limit the images to subjects who have a very high degree of notability (e.g. Christine Lagarde, Natalie Portman, Jane Goodall, not Marsh, Moakler or Serenity). A bunch of the men could probable be removed too. In fact, I think Ibadibam's Remove entirely proposal is a reasonable solution as well. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Given the admirably clear statement about the editor's editorial motivation and editorial action: "I today began the process of swapping them for images of women in the professions and academia if I can find them, or mainstream singers and actresses," there can be no appropriate response but to oppose it. Why on earth should it matter whether these are images of people who have appeared in porn. Striking notable women from this set of images because they are porn actors is as clearcut an example of editing from a point of view and censorship as I can imagine. It ought not be countenanced by the community. Sadly, the reason and actions display a total lack of understanding about how we do, and how we don't, edit around here. If this editing, for these reasons, is to stand, I suggest we change our name to Bowdlerpedia. (Timestamp will look funny because I've now combined two earlier edits at SlimVirgin's request, on my talk page.) David in DC (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Shenanigans! No one is saying we can't have one or two porn stars. Most people are pointing out the weird over emphasis on posting pictures of porn stars on this page. Seems really undue to have so many. Porn stars only represent a very small number of vegetarians. The number of pictures of them that get posted should reflect that fact. NickCT (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what you are saying though. Currently there is only a single image of a porn star in the article in addition to a topless model and a Playboy centerfold and this RFC will determine whether these three images will be removed or not. Female pop stars and film stars also make up a very small percentage of vegetarians, so the disparity between your position and David's is that he disagrees with removing images of women that offend Slimvirgin's sensibilities when the same rationale of representation isn't being applied to other women who only represent a small percentage of vegetarians. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What offends my (and I suspect SlimVirgin's) sensibilities is not the images of the women concerned, but your odd preoccupation with having such a large percentage of the women shown here be glamour models and porn stars. Having that many is just way weird, intrusive, and inappropriate in an article like this. Andreas JN466 07:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Betty Logan - re "That is what you are saying though." - No it's not. I don't want to speak for SlimVirgin, but I'm guessing she wouldn't object to one or two of the images being a porn/glamour star. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all the current representation of women in "adult industries" is not out of proportion with other industries being represented such as pop stars and film stars. Second of all, Slimvirgin's RFC question is explicitly clear: should "porn stars be removed"? If the consensus is "yes" then I guarantee she will remove all of them (she has already tried removing the single Playboy model on List of vegans), because that is what she wants to do and that is how I would interpret such a consensus too. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Betty Logan - Why don't we just ask her for clarification? @SlimVirgin - Is it your position that ALL the images of women in the occupations discussed should be removed, or would you be OK if one or possibly two images remained? NickCT (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what her position is. If she were ok with just one or two images she wouldn't have removed the single image we had in the List of vegans. I also know how precise she is in her RFC questions: if she were ok with keeping one or two images then she would have asked "should we limit the number of "porn stars" to a couple of images. I have never seen her file an RFC that leaves room for an ambiguous interpretation. If you are ok with keeping one or two images then all you need to do is make it clear in your RFC response that you are fine with such images but would like it limited to a couple or whatever. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, if people want one of the 42 images to be of a porn star, I have no problem with that, and I've suggested that we find a free image of a male porn star who's a vegetarian. My objection is to having found six porn stars among the 13 images of women (currently reduced to three out of 13). Something has obviously gone wrong with the way Wikipedia represents women if, out of 13 images in an article unrelated to porn, six are of female porn stars. I'm therefore asking that we remove all of them, given that so few women are represented.

As I asked above (but got no answer), of all the professions we could include, why would the porn industry have to figure in a short list of images of women? Why is porn star a "vital" profession when it comes to representations of women on Wikipedia, but not to representations of men? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin re " Something has obviously gone wrong ........ if, out of 13 ..... six are of female porn stars. I" - Completely agree with that. I think what would be a good idea is if we agreed on an "acceptable ratio". I'd say that it would be OK is 1 out of 12 images of female vegetarians, was of a female who was in some way related to the adult entertainment industry. Does that seem like a reasonable ratio to you Slim? If not, can you tell us what you think would be an "acceptable ratio"? NickCT (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, again I have to ask (third time of asking, but no one will answer): why is involvement in the porn industry regarded as a "vital" profession for women, such that it must be included in such a short list? And if it is so regarded, why not for the men too? (See #Systemic bias below for the very different ways in which men and women are represented visually on this list.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's vital. It's that taking them down for the reasons you've stated is antithetical to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. And also, please see the section below re Notability vs statistical representation. As for a male porn actor, I can find a gazillion references to Ron Jeremy being vegan or vegetarian, especially since his recent hospitalization. But I can't find one in a WP:RS. I'll keep looking. David in DC (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with [[WP:NOTCENSORED]? It just seems like a weird and rather biased representation of women vegetarians to me. Kaldari (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

David in DC argues that in Wikipedia, any image added by a pseudonymous editor can be removed again from a list like this, except images of porn stars and glamour models, because they enjoy the protection of this WP:NOTCENSORED policy. With that bizarre logic, it's not surprising that images of porn stars accumulate at the expense of women in other walks of life. Would you say his view is widespread among Wikipedians? And if it is, why isn't the Wikimedia Foundation doing something about it? Andreas JN466 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin - re " why is involvement in the porn industry regarded as a "vital" profession for women" - I don't think it is "vital". But if that's your bar, it's sorta high, no? I mean I might look at Jane Goodall and ask, "why is involvment in primatology regarded as vital?". The question shouldn't be, is this a vital profession for a particular gender, more than it should be, is undue emphasis given to this particular profession.

I think at the end of the day, my feeling is that a single image of a female in adult entertainment is probably not undue emphasis. More than one probably would be. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, the impression of their apparently being considered "vital" derives from the tenacity with which editors here are pushing for inclusion of this particular profession in this particular article. If someone had inserted three images of Tamil political activists, and then cried "racism" if it were proposed to delete any one of them, I would consider it equally devoid of merit. Andreas JN466 15:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, no one has argued that we must have at least three, and preferably more, primatologists; or even that we must have one. What is being requested here is that, whatever selection criteria we use for the men, we use for the women too. To argue that, of all the professions we could offer, we must have at least one (and preferably more) male porn stars would be odd; and indeed no one thought to argue that. But when it comes to women, it was fine to add six, and still we cling to three and insist that there must be one. No one will explain why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin - I think you're mischaracterizing the argument. Everyone agrees with you that it wasn't "fine" to add six. Most agree with you that three is probably inappropriate, but no one is arguing that we must have one. What is being asked is whether it is OK to have one. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear, I'll try one last time. There may be policy-compliant reasons for removing some of these images. But the wording of SlimVirgin's RfC and many comments on this page speak of a reason that is profoundly non-compliant with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this regard, I'm more concerned with WP:NPOV and somewhat less with WP:NOTCENSORED, but both apply. As does notability and coverage in reliable sources Our decisions in editing should be based on core pillars. Please see the section way at the bottom of the page that explains my view about notability and reliable sources as they pertain to the subject at hand. I'm certainly not arguing that WP:NOTCENSORED gives special protection to images of porn actors and glamour models. I understand that these images are offensive to some. But I'd make the same argument about images of Muhammad, Mormon undergarments or The American Flag with a swastika super-imposed on it. It's not about porn. It's about not letting ideology or theology dictate what images are appropriate on wikipedia. An image of the prophet shouldn't be taken down from an article about the cartoon kerfuffle; an image of Mormon undergarments shouldn't be taken down from an article about the LDS Church; an image of a swastika/Old Glory mash-up shouldn't be taken down from an article about skinheads. In each case, if a free-use image exists and is added to the article, it shouldn't be taken down because it's offensive to some. It's regrettable that this seems bizarre to some. The question of why the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing anything about it seems at least equally bizzare to me. I'd urge caution on that line of inquiry. While no policy violation in and of itself, the road from that question toward violation of another core community value seems to me a fairly short one. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is still bizarre. Imagine I insisted on having at least three, but preferably six images of Ghanaian matriarchs in this article. You say, six Ghanaians is too much; there should be a more balanced selection. Then I come back at you and say, Well, I understand that Ghanaian women are offensive to some, but we shouldn't take images down just because they are offensive to some people who don't like Ghanaians. You see what I did there? You are simply abusing NOTCENSORED to push for something that is undue. And the definition of "undue" is a key part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Andreas JN466 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• strongly random Just randomize it. Talk:List_of_vegetarians#A_simple_solution_-_randomize_it. This solution takes all of the POV pushing off the table. If you like, you can change the images every 3 months, or even every month if you really want. Either way, it gets rid of any bias. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. We may not like it, but showing off their bodies is still an effective way for women to become notable. Unless men stop reacting to them in "that way," this is probably never going to change. By suppressing the notability of such women, Wikipedia would attempt to become an agent of social change, rather than the neutral reporter of facts it should be. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Utterly ridiculous to have such an over-representation of people from any profession, including this one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Reduce Over-represention of one profession. North8000 (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
• Remove Remove all the pictures, or else have a reasonably tasteful picture of every person on the list for whom a picture is available. Anything else is WP:OR, because you are picking and choosing who to feature. Abhayakara (talk) 22:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think of the solution below, to randomize the selection? There are 471 bios on this page, so you can't fit all the pics.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

"so you can't fit all the pics." Sure you could, it would just make the list in question longer than it is right now, assuming that all the current members of the list have available pictures. I've seen long lists that have pictures associated with almost all the list's members...List_of_British_pornographic_actors comes to mind for one. Guy1890 (talk) 23:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine, you could fit all the pics - but if we assume each pic is on average 100 pix high, that would make the final list over 471,000 pixels high, or around 50-60 screens full of content on a decent screen. Thus, way too long IMHO. What's wrong with randomization? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

For a while each entry was represented by an image, but there was an RFC on it and the consensus was to remove the individual entries. You can see it at [8]. The images take ages to load, and it is barely functional as a list, with an extremely low information to screen ratio. If it came to it I would choose "no images" over "all images". Betty Logan (talk) 00:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Get rid of all of them per Czar and others. I really don't see what pictures of people's faces add to this article. (I also don't really see what this article adds to the encyclopedia.) – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Like some others, I do not see the purpose of these lists. Are the to promote, deprecate, show normality, show abnormality of the subject? Until this is agreed I see no reason object to any individuals provided they meet the article's criteria. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Just a thought, one simple and reasonable criterion for inclusion of any individual in a list is that they should have a WP article on them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove ALL per User:Czar and User:Arms & Hearts. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Here is an overview of what we have:

• 1 economist
• 4 politicans (counting Gandhi)
• 1 tennis player
• 2 scientists
• 1 figure skater
• 1 revolutionary
• 4 actors (1 male, 3 female)
• 1 mathematician
• 6 musicians (2 male, 4 female)
• 1 playwright
• 2 Rabbis
• 1 TV presenter
• 1 artist
• 1 psychiatrist
• 1 journalist
• 1 dancer
• 1 writer
• 2 doctors
• 1 novelist
• 1 glamor model
• 1 architect
• 1 Playboy centerfold
• 1 Archbishop
• 1 porn star
• 1 poet
• 1 comedian
• 1 footballer
• 1 monster

Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The 13 images of women, in order, used to be:

• Pamela Anderson in a bikini; Jayde Nicole, Playboy Playmate with breasts half exposed; Martina Navratilova, tennis player; Surya Bonaly, figure skater; Kareena Kapoor, actress; Sharon den Adel, singer; Nicolette Kluijver, presenter and model; Georgina Verbaan, actress; Mojo Mathers, politician; Anni-Frid Lyngstad, singer; Julie Christie, actress; Jane Goodall, primatologist; Leona Lewis, singer; Jodie Marsh, model in a bikini; Lauren Anderson, Playboy Playmate; Isadora Duncan, dancer; Shanna Moakler, Playboy Playmate; Hayden Panettiere, actress; Serenity, porn actress.

The 29 images of men were:

• Lo Wing-lok, doctor and politician; Albert Einstein, scientist; Gustav Struve, revolutionary; Pythagoras, philosopher; Mahatma Gandhi, politician; George Bernard Shaw, playwright; She'ar Yashuv Cohen, chief rabbi; Leonardo da Vinci, artist; Abraham Isaac Kook, chief rabbi; Frederik van Eeden, psychiatrist; Francisco van Jole, journalist; Jaime de Magalhães Lima, writer; Amílcar de Sousa, doctor; Leo Tolstoy, novelist; Antoni Gaudí, architect; John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople; Lord Byron, poet; Paul McCartney, singer-songwriter; Dick Gregory, comedian; John Harvey Kellogg, doctor; Herschel Walker, football player; Forest Whitaker, actor; Gabe Saporta, musician; and ending with Frankenstein's monster.

Are there really no women vegetarian physicians, lawyers, scientists, philosophers, artists and journalists? When I suggested above that we look for free images of such women, the response was that, if we want to find images that are representative of women, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes." [9] But this argument isn't applied to men. No one argues that, given that most men aren't physicians, rabbis, and mathematicians, we should be looking for images of male taxi drivers and plumbers.

All that is being requested here is that we do for the women what we have done for the men; whatever criteria were employed to find images of men, we use the same criteria for images of women. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that much of this overly-long discussion isn't getting through to you, so I'll try one last time. You're still talking about a former composition of a list that not longer exists...who cares at this late date? That's not what's up for discussion here, period. The image you give of Jayde Nicole isn't one with her breasts "half exposed", it's one of her in a dress with a neckline...get a grip on reality please. Also, the image of Jodie Marsh that's up for inclusion now isn't a "model in a bikini", it's an image (one of several that are available) of her in a cropped top. None of the originally proposed images here are that risque at all, period. As has been pointed out before, the pool of possible women or men on Wikipedia that are available for inclusion on any list is drastically reduced by the fact that the super-vast majority of people in the world aren't notable and therefore will never have an article written about them on Wikipedia. We're all on a wild goose chase for a "representative" list of people from a drastically reduced available pool of possibilities. Can we bring this silly exercise to a conclusion anytime soon? Guy1890 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The list is very similar now to the way it was. Pamela Anderson was moved to List of vegans, and instead of the bikini image I swapped it for one with clothes. [10] When I removed it I was reverted. [11] I swapped two others in this article for the same women with more clothes. [12] I removed a porn star and was reverted. [13] Wikisceptic removed another of the porn stars and was reverted. [14] [15] So the list is more or less as described above.

Again, what I'm requesting is that whatever is done for the images of men be applied to the images of women. If women are to be portrayed in bathing clothes or underwear, let's have the same proportion of men in the same clothing. If there are three women porn stars out of 13 images, let's have the same proportion of male porn stars. If there are male scientists and philosophers, let's look for female scientists and philosophers. If we currently don't have free images of such women, that's another indication of systemic bias, so let's ask for them. But there's no justification for representing women as Playmates of the Year, porn stars and models, while representing men as physicians, mathematicians and architects. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the originally proposed images here are of women in "bathing clothes or underwear", period. "let's have the same proportion of male porn stars." Are there any male adult film actors, that have articles on Wikipedia, that are vegetarian? Are there "female scientists and philosophers", that have articles on Wikipedia, that are vegetarian? You do understand that the reason that those kind of people might not be on this list, yet, is because they haven't reached the notability requrement that Wikipedia has in place, don't you? Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, if there are currently no images of women in underwear, it's because I replaced them. I then began the process of looking for images of women academics, scientists, etc, when the reverting began, so I decided to come here to request consensus. I would like to find those articles and images, and if we currently don't have enough, I'd like to fix that. (I've posted a request on Commons for a male vegetarian porn star, if we must have porn stars.) But as things stand, Betty Logan is likely to continue restoring the (currently) three images of female porn stars out of 13 women overall, so I need consensus to continue the work.

Please take the point about systemic bias, rather than arguing about details. Look at the way women are represented, then look at the representations of men. It's unacceptable. This page reflects the bias of Wikipedia, not the real world. If we have to fix it by creating articles and uploading images of women vegetarian academics, that's what we ought to be doing, rather than acting as if it's written in stone that men are likely to be scientists and rabbis, while women are likely to be Playmates of the Year. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's unacceptable"...in your opinion, and it seems clear that you are willing to go to great lengths to get your interpretation of the rules here on Wikipedia to prevail, but that's not the way the system works here from what I've been able to gather over the years. "This page reflects the bias of Wikipedia, not the real world"...which makes your focus on these issues seem awfully pointy to me. Guy1890 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about "systemic bias" but I can say that the selection of women seems weighted toward performers, including some flesh-exposing types that really don't belong alongside Da Vinci. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a side-effect of the trivial nature of this list. Who gets interviewed about something as unimportant as their dietary preferences? Celebrities, especially celebrities that haven't done anything of any cultural impact.—Kww(talk) 01:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a good observation. For the time being it may be best to show more discretion with the photos. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are clear...?

Are we discussing the removal of the images full stop or the removal of some pictures of women because of their profession...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither. We're talking about the UNDUE focus on images of women porn stars (previously 6 out of 13 images). The issue is whether, in a list of just 13 images of women, three (as of now) or even one ought to be of a female porn star. So (a) do porn stars need to be represented at all in such a short list, and (b) if yes, could they be represented by a man instead of a woman? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So we ARE talking about the women and their profession here...? I guarantee if they were all women rocket scientists, there wouldn't be an issue. There is no undue focus here. It's just how it has happened. It has nothing to do with their profession, but vegetarians in the public eye. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, if there were women rocket scientists, I wouldn't be complaining. My concern is that there are a lot of images on Wikipedia and on Commons that objectify women. Usually on WP these are in articles about the porn industry. But when I come to an article that has nothing to do with porn, I don't expect to see them here too. What I would like to see here is a wide range of different male and female professionals, artists, scientists, academics, actors, singers, etc. It saddens me that a situation ever developed that saw 6 of the 13 images of women focused on breasts and the porn industry. I would like to work for a project where it wouldn't occur to an editor to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, can we focus on the current number, which is currently THREE. I have not stopped you removing two of the three Playmates. Secondly, will you please refer to them as centerfolds or glamor models rather than porn stars, since only one of them is a porn star to my knowledge. Taking your bra off for a photo shoot is not porn, so it's disrespectful, not to mention potentially libellous. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the proposed images here of women in the adult industry objectify anyone. They are extremely tame photos. Guy1890 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guy and MisterShiney—there is no rational reason to remove pictures of certain people just because of their profession, and these are obviously not pornographic photos (though porn is a very emotional topic for many people, as evidenced here). In addition, I agree with Cailil below that there isn't much good reason to include anyone who isn't notable for being vegetarian. Ignatzmice•talk 18:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Should this article contain images of women porn stars?" was the question for consideration. I think a number of us are arguing for the removal of all of the images. I included my rationale in my post above. czar · · 20:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)Actally a number of us are saying all the images should go. The only people who should be on the list, not to metion illustrated, are those who are notable for being vegetarians. People who are famous and also by the way vegetarians are being given undue weight, regardless of what their profession is--Cailil ^talk 20:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, that should apply to the entire contents of the list. A list of people based on something as trivial as their diet doesn't make any sense unless the people are actually notable for having that particular diet.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An interesting point, which reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers (2nd nomination). Ignatzmice•talk 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely - that's my point. For the list to come into line with policy it should *only* list ppl notable for being (in this case) vegetarians. And it should only have images of those most notable for that. As per WP:CSC: "if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This list needs serious focussing--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me on the face of it, but what sort of criteria would you use? For instance, would someone like Alicia Silverstone be considered a "notable vegetarian" for prancing around nude in PETA ads, on the basis of engaging in vegetarian activism? Would Bill Clinton be a notable vegetarian for simply discussing his diet in depth during a CNN interview? Would Armin Meiwes be a notable vegetarian given his high profile conversion? Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Being a PETA spokesperson would certainly qualify,although, unfortunately, given the nature of their ads, it would aggravate SlimVirgin's legitimate concern about overrepresentation of nude females. Mentioning vegetarianism in an interview shouldn't even come close to warranting inclusion.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

These lists do not only include people who are notable for being X. They include people who are notable and who are X. That is, it is a list of notable vegetarians, not a list of people notable for being vegetarian. Similarly, in a List of Muslim lawyers, we would not exclude a lawyer who became notable as an MP, but who had never been notable as a lawyer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It would over-represent celebrities in general, I fear. I am also not overly keen on turning the page into a PETA advocacy list either. I feel we need a simple, effective but not overly stringent criteria. For me, I think Bill Clinton would actually be a really good entry on such a list: lots of high profile secondary sources—with no vegetarian agenda—reported his conversion to veganism. Clinton becoming vegan was a big, notable story. I am less keen on including people who just announce it on their Twitter page, since how does that establish notability? What makes it notable is when a media outlet like CNN pick the story up. Likewise with these PETA ads. They are pushing an agenda, so I don't think a video on the PETA website establishes the notability i.e. Silverstone posing nude for PETA was activisim, but it wasn't notable until the main media outlets picked up on the story. I think a really good step for these lists (along with the vegan one) would be to insist on a neutral, secondary source, and see hwere that gets us. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

• "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.
• "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with establishing additional criteria to keep a list from becoming unwieldy or meaninglessly large. The main problem with this list is that it has taken an extremely common thing and attempted to list every instance. In many countries, this is effectively a List of people with two nostrils. This list, and its partner in crime, List of vegans, need serious pruning before they are meaningful.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: photos of noted vegetarians

A few editors have commented that the article should feature either photos of noted vegetarians or none at all. I don't particularly agree and I don't care much about list articles (although I do care about the pornstars thing), so I feel a bit stupid for having done the work, but here is a list of people who either have reliable sources giving particularly significant attention to their vegetarianism, are noted for vegetarian activism, writings etc or have won an award for being a vegetarian:

Bryan Adams, André 3000, Ashoka, Brigitte Bardot, Russell Brand, Cesar Chávez, Jessica Chastain, Ellen Degeneres, Albert Einstein, Mohandas Gandhi, Woody Harrelson, George Harrison, Damien Hirst, Chrissie Hynde, Alexander von Humboldt, Joan Jett, Shahid Kapoor, Abraham Isaac Kook, KRS-One, Carl Lewis, Leona Lewis, Bob Marley, Paul McCartney, Malcolm McLaren, Morrissey, Martina Navratilova, Alex Pacheco, Parshva, Natalie Portman, Prince (musician), Pythagoras, Henry Stephens Salt, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Gustav Struve, Leo Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci, Ellen G. White, Kristen Wiig, Virgil.

That's the same number of photos as we have now. A few names are actually not listed at present, so I guess that would need to be fixed with cites. It slightly reduces the proportion of women, but that's just because it was difficult with the new criterion.

My list may not be definitive, but would editors support a change along these lines? Formerip (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that 3 or 4 of these are included in List of vegans. A minor complication. Formerip (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed above, and I am against it on the grounds it massively over-represents celebrities: about half of those images are of actors and popstars. They are already over-represented as it is and this approach would exacerbate the problem. Given a choice between this proposal and Slim's sanitized version, I think the sanitized version would still be more representative of the list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That could be fixed. I steered away from quite a few historical figures to keep it close to the shape of the current list, but those are available if wanted. Note also that, if the possible vegans are removed, there are actually only 16 pop stars and actors in the list. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is that we should have as wide a range of "professions" as possible: there is really no need to have more than one actress, if for example you can add a tennis for instance or an ice skater instead; ideally we want to show just how diverse vegetarianism is in society. So if that sort of demographic spread can be achieved through vegetarian "activism" then that is probably a step in the right direction rather than the arbitrary approach we have now. However, it still doesn't resolve the central issue at the heart of the RFC: someone like Pamela Anderson who was a Playboy centerfold and who has participated in several prominent PETA campaigns and whose photo is among the images at List of vegans would qualify under the criteria you are proposing, and I still think Slim would prefer to remove her. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: 20 most important people

OK, I promise this is a serious proposal :) I ran a script to see which of our 400+ vegetarians are the most "important". This was actually determined by which articles had the most incoming links. Here are the top 20:
1. 7355: Paul McCartney
2. 4624: Gautama Buddha
X. 4098: George Harrison (one Beatle is probably enough)
X. 3786: Krishna (not a real person)
X. 2848: Rama (not a real person)
3. 3421: Leonardo da Vinci
4. 2716: Leo Tolstoy
5. 2650: George Bernard Shaw
6. 2619: Plutarch
7. 2570: Swami Vivekananda (popularized yoga)
8. 2473: Virgil
9. 2444: A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (the Hare Krishna guy)
10. 2350: Elvis Costello
11. 2327: John Howard
12. 2181: Confucius
13. 1985: Mohandas Gandhi
14. 1871: Leona Lewis
15. 1868: Franz Kafka
16. 1858: Gustav Mahler
17. 1839: Kate Bush
18. 1729: John Coltrane
19. 1705: Amitabh Bachchan (very famous Indian actor)
20. 1554: Shania Twain

If you exclude the folks from ancient history, you pick up:
17. 1404: Philip Glass
18. 1396: Percy Bysshe Shelley
19. 1389: Martina Navratilova
20. 1340: Natalie Portman

I'm not claiming this is a truly scientific method, but I like it better than just choosing random people. Kaldari (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this, is I think this accounts for templates - so if someone gets stuck on a template that gets replicated, boom they get a lot of incoming links. So it's not a great proxy, although the results above look reasonable nonetheless. I still like random though - why do the people all have to be "famous"? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you're right about the templates, although I don't think it necessarily invalidates the results. I'm not totally opposed to the idea of random, but it doesn't seem to have gotten a lot of support yet. Plus I imagine people would naturally replace the more obscure people with more famous people over time as this is pretty much the de facto way these lists are done (although it isn't an official guideline or anything as far as I know). Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I accidentally left Leonardo da Vinci out of the list. He's actually #3, which changes the list a bit. Kaldari (talk) 03:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should Krishna and Rama be left out? They would certainly add interesting diversity to the group of pictures, and they would actually be less sectarian than having a picture of A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. It's not known whether or not Krishna and Rama were real people, and they certainly caused millions around the world to become vegetarian. Shii (tock) 23:51, 14 May 2013 (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.

Two images removed

I've removed two of the images in question, and left Shanna Moakler, per Wikisceptic and because she's perhaps the best known of the three. If someone wants to start an RfC about the remaining images, that's fine. It's not something I'd be interested in doing; my only concern was the over-representation of female porn stars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Where was there a consensus to do this? You should restore them until a consensus is reached. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The RFC closed with recommendation to have one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

The RfC was closed with a recommendation to have another one. Nowhere was there agreed to be a consensus to remove two images. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

read this: "I think the option that would most likely have the most support, even if it's not editor's first choice, is to reduce the number of "porn stars" (which seems to have been broadly interpreted) because, as has been pointed out, they are overly represented - I would suggest down to one image. This also seems in keeping with WP:UNDUE. However I see this as a temporary solution as I will explain below." --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My intention was to propose a temporary solution, that while probably being no ones first choice, would be amenable to most people while a more long term solution was found. There were several such solutions suggested and I strongly suggest editors start an RfC on these. If editors so desire there could of course be the option of the previous situation (i.e. more than one) included in the RfC. Dpmuk (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it would help with any future discussion on images to try to clarify exactly what the purpose if this page is. It certainly should not be to promote (or discourage) vegetarianism. It the moment it seem a bit too promotional to me. It says,' look at all these good, famous, and successful people, they were all vegetarians'. Or maybe, 'You can be a vegetarian and still do anything you like'. Even that is not within the purpose of WP in my opinion. I will start a section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

People from other language versions of WP.

I propose that all people who do not have an article about them in English WP should be removed from the list. This sets a very clear and easy to follow standard for notability. People from other language versions are clearly not that notable in the English speaking world otherwise there would be an article on them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Um, notability has nothing to do with what-language-media-one-is-notable-in. So, I disagree. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Notability isn't limited to being notable in the "English speaking world", since foreign language sources can be exclusively used to determine notability. The problem with limiting these types of lists to people with a profile just on the English Wikipedia is that there is a bias to just covering people notable in the English speaking world. Widening the net to encompass entries on the foreign language Wikipedias helps to level that out. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Obviously notability has got something to do with language or these people would be in this version of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In practice, yes, but in theory, no. (I love saying that). Notability for en:wp is based on existence of reliable sources, no matter what language they are in. Language-bias means we have more articles about people and topics covered in english-language media, but there's nothing to say we can't have an article about X who is famous in China and where all media is only in Chinese.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is. I see no reason to have two different standards of notability in the sane version of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there may be different standards of notability on different language-versions of wikipedia, but I'm not sure. But standard for notability for en.wikipedia is always the same.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

No-one is making a case for a different notability standard. If for argument's sake an entry was deleted from out Wikipedia for failing notability but an entry existed on a FL wiki, then the entry should be removed on the grounds of not satisfying out notability criteria. However, if we were to remove the FL-wiki entries on the grounds they simply aren't listed on our Wikipedia then in most cases we would be simply removing entries that would pass our notability standard, which would be counter-productive to WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection at all to expanding our horizons but this should not be through the medium of vegetarianism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this. If the articles did exist, and were deleted b/c they didn't pass notability standards, then feel free to remove the redlinks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It also provides useful red-links, that someone could henceforth translate. If someone is present in german wikipedia, there's a good chance they would pass notability standards here - we should at least give those people the benefit of the doubt IMHO.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a serious disadvantage that I had not thought of. It biasses WP towards having articles on vegetarians. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Wait, why? Wouldn't it bias us towards having articles on anything covered by other wikis but not this one? There are whole projects devoted to this effort (translating), so I wouldn't call it a bias, I'd call it an explicit goal.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

It is an explicit biased goal, unless you are going to red link all people in other versions of WP who are not in this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said, if there were a list of carnivores, or a list of communists, or a list-of-whatever people, I would not opposed redlinks for people present already in other wikis. In other words, my support for redlinks here has nothing to do with the fact that these are vegetarians.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Another advantage of sticking to English WP people only is that it gives the list a sense of scale. It says that of those people who were notable enough to have an entry in English WP, these people are vegetarians. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yikes! This discussion is on the wrong talk page. There is only one definition of notability on English-language wikipedia. It is found here: WP:N. It requires reliable sources to establish notability, without regard to the language of the source(s). If one thinks WP:N should be edited to disallow foreign language sources, one should propose it on that policy's talk page. We should not adopt a different definition of notability here. I'd argue against such a radical redifinition of WP:N on that talk page, but at least we'd be discussing it in the right place. David in DC (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of this list?

Further to the discussion of images, can anyone explain the purpose of this list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.".

Cheers, David in DC (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Morrissey not included

His vegetarianism is famous and his advocacy is unbeatable. --76.88.121.95 (talk) 21:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

He's a vegan and they have their own list: List of vegans. Betty Logan (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be done on the basis of evidence of self-identification? I'm pretty sure Morrissey is not a vegan, and he doesn't seem to have too much difficulty with dairy etc. Formerip (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

It's always possible he has adopted a vegan diet since those photos were taken, but generally I agree that if he identifies as a vegetarian rather than a vegan then he should be included here rather than there. If we could find a recent declaration by him (such as an interview in the last couple of years) then I would suggest just abiding by that. Betty Logan (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

What I really mean is that this is a matter of personal identification, like sexuality, so we shouldn't be relying on third parties. Probably, a fairly large number of people above a certain fame threshold have had their dietary preferences mispreported. I'd suggest we shouldn't be labeling anyone as a vegetarian or a vegan without having it on very good authority, rather than a passing comment by a journalist. Formerip (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we should go with reliable sources. Whether one is a vegetarian is not a mater of personal identification. Arguably, ones religion or sexuality is, but whether one is a vegetarian is not. That's a factual matter. It's determined by what one actually eats or refrains from eating. As reported in reliable sources. If I say I'm a vegetarian and there's a news report from the Cattleman's Ball indicating that I chewed meat with my mouth open while introducing the Cattleman's Ball Beauty Contest winner (Miss Steak), wikipedia should not include me on this list, regardless of how I "self-identify." Hell, Jimbo got over-ruled when he tried to correct Will.i.am's birth name based on Will.i.am personally asking him to set it straight. WP:N and WP:RS trumped Jimbo's conversation with the subject. But for vegetarians, we should take their "self-identification" over journalism? Good Lord, "I'd suggest we shouldn't be labeling anyone as a [XXX] without having it on very good authority, rather than a passing comment by a journalist" is the exact antithesis of our policy. David in DC (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It's the antithesis of old policy. You're right in a way that vegetarianism/veganism is a factual matter about what a person eats, but that argument falls apart, I think, when you consider how rare it is for us to have the opportunity to use stool samples as a source. And your argument about the Cattleman's Ball makes the opposite point you intend it to. Above, I linked to a series of images showing Morrissey eating dairy products, but we have him as a vegan because a journalist, for all we know, wanted to save time by not typing "etari". Formerip (talk) 23:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

As for Morrissey, if the picures are from reliable sources and from a later date than the ref saying he's a vegan, he should, arguably, be removed from the list of vegans. It requires editorial judgment about the comparative reliability of the conflicting sources. I think I agree that, based on the pics, he should be stricken from the list of vegans. But that's a discussion for the List of Vegans page. As should I be, if I were on the list and the pics of me eating dead cow while introducing Miss Steak appeared in a reliable source.

As for the rest, it's no more about stool samples than it is about self identification. Using stool samples as a source would be prohibited original research. They are a primary source. Extreme care should be used with primary sources. Even more extreme care is called for when the primary source is a HAZMAT.

If a reliable source publishes information about stool samples or self-identification, that could be a source for a fact in a wikipedia article, but not the stool sample itself and not the self identification unless it's quoted in a reliable source.

"[W]e have him as a vegan because a journalist, for all we know, wanted to save time by not typing 'etari'" is of a piece with "...we shouldn't be labeling anyone as a [XXX] without having it on very good authority, rather than a passing comment by a journalist." It's impossible for me to square either sentiment with WP:N and WP:RS. Nor WP:NOR, WP:TERTIARY or a whole host of similar policies and guidelines. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

puleez. Pictures of him licking an ice cream cone or standing outside a burger joint? Come on, let's not play detective here - how do you know it wasn't soy ice cream? That is some serious circumstantial evidence... not enough to convict. Let's go by what's written, and in the case of this particular thing, I think statements by the individual should hold the most weight.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Obiwan is right about not playing detective. But I'll repeat, and discussion about the sources and purported sources for whether Morrissey is a vegan belong on that list's talk page. Former can post his pics, the Jedi Master can discuss "playing detective", I can opine correctly or incorrectly. But not on this talk page. David in DC (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Former vegetarians

Looking at Louisa May Alcott on the "former vegetarian" list got me to thinking. Aren't all the dead people on the "Active vegetarians" list former vegetarians, too? Dead people aren't really all that active.

I do get it that what's meant here is to differentiate between Ghandhi, who never gave up vegetarianism in life, and those like Alcott, who are reliably sourced to have been vegetarians and then to have given it up, while still alive.

But with the headings we've got, one is over-inclusive ("active") and one is under-inclusive ("former")

For the Alcott types "Reformed vegetarians" wouldn't work because it's POV one way and "Lapsed vegetarians" wouldn't work because it's POV the other way (plus, "lapsed" could still apply to dead folk like Gandhi, I suppose.) So I don't know what to suggest there.

Lifelong vegetarians would work for Gahndi-types, but would exclude living, current vegetarians, for the same reason that Peter O'Toole once rejected a lifetime achievement award, retorting "I'm not done yet." And I don't think breaking up the vegetarians between those who've shuffled off this mortal coil and those who are still shuffling on it is a good solution. So I don't know what to suggest there, either.

Does anyone have a bright idea, or should we just ignore my brief moment of cognitive dissonance when I read Alcott's name? David in DC (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

And here's another nomenclature dilemma. I put Kristen Bell on the Active vegetarians list. Betty Logan quite correctly reverted me as Bell is on the Vegan list, with a good reference. In another good reference, it's detailed that she became a vegetarian as a kid, because she couldn't see eating animals that, in other settings, she liked to hug and cuddle - and became a vegan after seeing the film "Forks over Knives." I'll add that ref to the vegan list. But, on it's face, doesn't this make her a former vegetarian. I guess one answer is that "vegetarian" is a large set, of which "vegan" is a smaller subset. But that underminbes the rationale for seperate lists. By that logic, the vegetarian list should include vegans. David in DC (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be down with a merger of the lists, with some sort of marker or additional column to note that X had become a vegan. "former" should only hold those who have stated in RS that they are no longer following this diet.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The vegans used to be included on this article (see US & UK sections on [16]) but the list was split three years ago due to the increasing size. This list is already in the top 1000 articles on Wikipedia in size terms, so fusing the lists together would be a bad idea I think. As for whether someone is a "former vegetarian" or not, it is basically a label ascribed to people who have renounced the vegetarian lifestyle i.e. people who are dead haven't started eating meat so technically they remain vegetarian. It's mainly a functional label more than anything, since we used to just remove people who had given up the veggie diet; the problem with just removing entries wholesale though is that you lose the newer sources and then some of them would end up back on the list with old sources. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Steve Jobs

This source [17] clearly states that Jobs was a vegetarian. Can I ask why this has been removed? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

There seem to be contrary claims that he is pescetarian as opposed to vegeterian: [18]. The editor that removed him added him to the vegan list instead, so removing here is consistent with adding him to the other list (vegans are technically vegetarian but we avoid the overlap to keep the size down). I've moved him back to the "disputed" section since there is no indication he was vegan, but there are sources saying he was pescetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Mani and Mazdak

Can we have a third opinion in regards to this edit plz.

• Mani (prophet):

Augustine and Manichaeism, by Gillian Clark: "There were two kinds of Manichaeans, the Elect Saints and the Hearers. The Elect, who formed the nucleus of a Manichaean �cell�, were committed to a missionary life of poverty and celibacy. They were strict vegetarians, drank no wine, and were forbidden even to harvest or prepare food, because Mani had a revelation that it is a kind of murder to damage plants by harvesting."

Manichaeism I. General Survey, Encyclopedia Iranica: "The elect were submitted to five rigorous commandments which confined their lives to the duties of hearing and reading the instructive sermons and scriptures, singing hymns, offering prayers, attending the services and above all the sacramental communal meals, teaching and preaching the gospel of truth to brethren and lay-people, doing missionary work, etc. They were submitted to a strict vegetarian regime and forbidden to drink alcoholic drinks and eat meat"

• Mazdak:

Mazdak, Heritage Institute: "In summary, Mazdak proposed a peace-loving, classless and egalitarian society. The doctrines of his teachings included not taking life and not eating flesh - a pacifist and vegetarian doctrine."

My problem with using these as sources is that none of them explicitly tackle the issue of vegetarianism in regards to Mani or Mazdak. These sources discuss dogma which advocates vegetarianism. It seems like original research to me to extend the teachings to the teacher. For example, Buddhism advocates vegetarianism but the Dalai Lama himself is not vegetarian. I don't think these sources are suitable for these claims. Ideally we need sources that address the lives and known facts about these individuals, rather than simply drawing our own conclusions about their lives. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Comparing Mani with Dalai Lama is wrong. Compare Mani with Buddha because Buddha founded Buddhism and Mani founded Manichaeism influenced by Buddha and Zoroaster. Buddha and Zoroaster both are already on this vegeterians list. How could someone start a religion that the followers MUST be vegetarian but the founder is not?! and Mazdak was a follower of Mani and Zoroaster and also in Mazdakism which Mazdak founded you had to be a vegetarian.lapsking (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

To be specific Mani was Vegan.lapsking (talk) 03:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But these are your own conclusions, and they are not explicitly supported by the sources. For example, while goggling Mazdak I discovered [19] (note 34) which states that Manichaeans were prohibited from eating meat but were permitted to eat fish, so who really knows what Mani eats? Doctrine changes over the years as bits are added and re-interpreted, and definitions change too. If someone eats fish they are not vegetarian under the modern understanding of the term. This is why it is important for a source to directly support a claim rather than draw our own conclusions based on our own assumptions. Anyway, I have asked another editor for his view on this, so hopefully it will be cleared up tomorrow. If he takes your side I will self-revert although I would still prefer to have sources that address the individual rather than his teachings. I also think we need to take a close look at some of the other spiritual leaders on this list, but I will wait for the outcome of this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

These are not my conclusions."They were strict vegetarians, drank no wine, and were forbidden even to harvest or prepare food, because Mani had a revelation that it is a kind of murder to damage plants by harvesting." Mani had a revelation that it is a kind of murder to damage plants by harvesting, then you are talking about fish?lapsking (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about fish because there are reputable sources supporting the notion that Manichaeans ate fish, so it contradicts the claim that Manichaeans were "strict vegetarians". If he were a living person these sources would simply not be acceptable under policy because they do not support facts about Mani, but aspects of his religion. I disagree with making concessions simply because the person is dead. Betty Logan (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Buddha was a vegetarian but not all Buddhists are vegetarians. Zoroaster was a vegetarian but Zoroastrians eat meat. Just because some Manichaean's eat fish that doesn't mean Mani ate fish, since some Buddhists eat fish doesn't mean Buddha ate fish.lapsking (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

José Murica

The article on José Murica states that he himself isn't vegetarian. Which one is true ? EmiVal (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Once of the sources on his article indicates the vegetarian reports are propaganda. Either way, unless he clarifies it himself there is no way of knowing. I suggest adding that reference to his entry and moving him to the disputed vegetarians section. Betty Logan (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for spreading rumors

I have included a definition of "Disputed vegetarians" to omit "…those merely rumored, regardless of how widely rumored." Wikipedia is not the place for passing along rumors. See WP:RELIABLE and WP:ISNOT. I invite you to review and remove those for whom there is no reliable and authoritative source of evidence of being a vegetarian. I, myself, have removed Charles Darwin, from this list, for example.. —Danorton (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

What should be listed in the "Country" column if someone moves?

The entry in the "Country" column for Fauja Singh is "India." The article about him says he was born in India, when it was under British rule. He is now living in the United Kingdom. Should the "Country" column reflect the place of birth, the place where someone now resides (or died), the place were someone spent most of his/her life? 97.91.83.149 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The country is the "nationality", with preference given to place of residence if the person holds dual nationality. Admittedly it's not clear though, and perhaps we should go with "birthplace" like List of vegans and keep it simple. Betty Logan (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was NOT a vegetarian

This is a big myth that's come up. I'll quote Gary Yourofsky's site:

"biographers Albert Speer and Robert Payne attested to Hitler's love for liver dumplings, stuffed squab [pigeon], ham and sausage in the following books: Inside the Third Reich and The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. German Chef Dione Lucas wrote about Hitler's meat-eating in her Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook, published in 1964. Rynn Berry's Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover describes how Goebbels, The Third Reich's propaganda minister, tried to sell Hitler as a vegetarian to make him seem as peaceful as Gandhi, who was (and still is) adored by the world. Check out Berry's March 8, 2007 letter to the New York Times, below where he proves - beyond a reasonable doubt - what the top Nazis ate."

Remove his name immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.215.215 (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was indeed a vegetarian in the final few years of his life. That is beyond doubt (see Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism) and all the actual eyewitness accounts of the time (including his food taster) confirm this. What is unknown is the precise point at which he adopted the diet. There are many accounts of him eating stuffed squab and ham in the 1930s, and much of the "Hitler wasn't a vegetarian" revisionism relies on accounts of his diet during this period, but by the time of his death he had converted to a fully vegetarian diet. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Leonardo da Vinci and the quality and neutrality of sources

Leonardo da Vinci is listed here as a vegetarian but the sources for this are a dead link and a book promoting vegetarianism. I think that books promoting a vegetarian diet cannot be considered as reliable sources without some corroborating evidence. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally I agree with you. I have a huge problem with "vegetarian advocacy" sources and I don't think they are acceptable unless they include an explicit quote by the person in question confirming they are vegetarian. If you choose to go ahead and remove some entries on those grounds I will not oppose. The only reason I haven't done it myself is because some of my challenges to the sources in the past have led to conflict. Betty Logan (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Betty, like you, I am just concerned with neutrality and not seeing this page used as a promotional vehicle for vegetarianism. I have nothing against vegetarians but this is not the place to promote their views and principles. Personally I cannot really see the purpose of it but if we are going to have it it should show a representative cross section of vegetarians not mainly the good and the great. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Who is notable enough to be included?

Who is notable enough to be included? There seems to me to be a simple answer to this question, which is that we should only include people who have an entry in English Wikipedia. This is a simple and easily decided criterion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that this rule already seems to be applied to the list of vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The rule is that anyone with an article on any-language Wikipedia is eligible. If you look at the red-link names an inter-language wiki link is provided. If a persona doesn't have an article on any Wikipedia edition they should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that is too weak a criterion. It looks as though article this is intended to be an ad for vegetarianism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally people have articles on Wikipedias where they are famous, but we should try to not fall into the fame trap otherwise this list will end up with a Western bias. The criteria on Wikipedia is notability, so the existence of an article on either this Wikipedia or a foreign edition is a common criteria for many lists. It may not be the best criteria but it is simple to apply. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There is obviously going to be a bias in English WP towards those people who are notable in the English-speaking world. That is natural and probably unavoidable and unless and until a way is found round that issue in general I cannot see why we should use different criteria from the rest of WP for this list. I note that List of vegans appears to stick to English WP subjects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

How about changing the title to "List of notable vegetarians"? MaynardClark (talk) 06:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It goes against the list naming conventions: WP:LISTNAME. Betty Logan (talk) 06:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to see what the purpose of the list is. It clearly can never be a list of all vegetarians. The only purpose that I can see that it can serve is to be a representative sample of vegetarians. To do that we need to start with a list of people selected by some criterion other than being vegetarian (for example those listed in English WP) and then list only those in that sample who are vegetarian. I am still not sure why we should have the list at all but, if we do, we should have some simple and neutral criterion for inclusion. Allowing promoters of vegetarianism to select from a wider sample biasses the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

We have a list because it satisfies WP:LISTN, in that vegetarians are regularly discussed by reliable sources as a defined group. It clearly can never be a list of all vegetarians, but the list is finite under its current condition: that members must have an article about them on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is finite then so is the list. I am receptive to a more rigid inclusion criteria, but it has to be a basic objective test that can easily be applied. Anything too complicated and editors will simply ignore the criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we disagree about much. I agree that an easily applied objective is what is needed and, in my opinion, the best such test is inclusion in English WP. It is very easy to do a quick verification test, just look for a blue internal link, it is also very easy to look at the subject's article, just click the link. The problem with links to other language WPs is that is harder to find the article and even harder to understand what the subject is notable for.

The potential problem with lists like this is editing by pro and anti vegetarian editors. Both groups may look far and wide for subjects to include, one side looking for the good and great and the other looking for villains and miscreants. I think it is much easier to ensure fairness and balance if the subject pool is limited to those people already deemed notable in the English speaking world. This article should take a world view, but so should English WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to go along with that and will support that decision if it will resolve this discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have started the process of removing subjects not in English WP. Let us see how it goes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

List of notable vegetarians

I could be mistaken, but wouldn't it make sense for this article to be renamed "List of notable vegetarians", to make it clear that it should not become an endless list? Also, is any such list necessary, if the main article on vegetarism could note a few very notable ones (possibly having been important in the history or advocacy of vegetarianism) and leave it at that? As some various other lists, it seems to me that it could grow indefinitely. Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 09:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

See #Who is notable enough to be included? above. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This answers the question about renaming, but do you disagree about deleting the list and only mentioning very notable people related to the history or advocacy of vegetarianism on the main article instead? I at least was reassured when reading that only notable enough people to have a Wikipedia article can be listed. Thanks again. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Somehow I had the impression that such people lists were discouraged in general. When reading the WP sections about lists, it however does mention lists of people, agreeing with you about the notability with an existing Wikipedia article, but I seem to find no discouragement. Either my memory was bad, or something changed over time, but I admit still ignoring a lot about Wikipedia. I assume the answer will be yes, that you disagree to the deletion of the list, and I now also agree with this. Sorry for the trouble. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have now removed all entries that do not have an article in English WP.

76.10.128.192, like you, I do wonder what the purpose of this list is and who should qualify for inclusion if it is kept. There are editors who want to expand it and others like you and me who see little purpose in it.

It clearly is not possible to have everyone who is a vegetarian listed here so we need some criterion for listing. Having an article in English WP is a neutral and reasonably independent criterion that prevents the list being used as a promotional vehicle for vegetarianism. It is also very easily enforceable; no blue link, no entry. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob Marley

Was he a vegetarian? I have provided as source from a published book which states that he was. The book discusses this in the context of his death at a relatively young age despite his heathy vegetarian lifestyle. Why would this not be a reliable source?--Egghead06 (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Chrissie Hynde

It looks to me as though the source for Chrissie being a vegetarian is more reliable than the vegan source. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I only oppose the overlap, Martin, since there is a "hard split" between the two lists i.e. we don't duplicate. If you honestly feel that the vegan source does not come up to snuff then feel free to restore Hynde to this list and remove her from the vegan one. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the overlap. What do you think about the sources? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian is definitely a stronger source; the question is whether the ellentv is an acceptable source for the vegan one. She certainly owned a vegan restaurant (see The Telegraph) so I'm inclined to believe the ellen source is correct in this instance. That said, it is borderline in terms of source quality so I certainly wouldn't challenge its removal on those grounds. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not care that much so I will leave it as it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Ricky Martin

Regarding the addition of Ricky Martin, can 'People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals' be considered a reliable source in this context? In any case it appears the diet may be experimental. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I think PETA can probably be considered reliable for simply relaying someone's statements unless there is evidence of them misrepresenting people. That said animal rights advocacy groups aren't ideal sources and there should be some effort to find alternatives. Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

H. G. Wells not a vegetarian

Wells shouldn't be here- Michael Sherboure says nothing about Wells being a vegetarian in his Wells bio, "H G Wells: Another Kind of Life". Also Rod Preece states in his book "Animal Sensibility and Inclusive Justice in the Age of Bernard Shaw" (p.242) that Wells rejected Shaw's pleas to adopt vegetarianism. Also, in his 1941 book "Guide to the New World", Wells states about the Sankey Declaration:

A considerable number of people opposed it because it did not assert or impose on all mankind, some particular fad. Vegetarians, for example, wanted clauses to establish the legal rights of animals (pigs, etc.).

A "fad"? That doesn't sound like someone who was sympathetic to vegetarianism. 176.61.97.121 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I have serious doubts about the source cited for Wells's supposed vegetarianism: Conscious eating by Gabriel Cousens. [20]. The source claims that "Jesus, Budda, Krishna, Rama, Zarathustra, John the Baptist, John the Divine, Mathew, Pythagoras, Plato, Virgil, Horace, Rabia Basra, Henry David Thoreau. Ralph Waldo Emerson, Benjamin Franklin, Richard Wagner, Voltaire, Sir Issac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci, William Shakespeare, Charles Darwin, H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Mahatma Gandhi, Leo Tolstoy, Albert Schweitzer, and Albert Einstein, among others" were vegetarian - but cites no sources for any of them. A ridiculous list, for multiple reasons. I note that this book is cited for multiple entries, which is worrying - why are we citing someone who's claim to fame is as founder of the "Essene Order of Light" new age religion, and who's only qualification is as an M.D., for biographical claims? I see no reason whatsoever to see this source as remotely reliable concerning such matters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted of course that Wells is in the list of 'Disputed vegetarians' - though if the only source for such a supposed 'dispute' is Cousens, I can see no reason for inclusion at all - the same comment clearly applied to others in the 'disputed' section. A claim that there is a dispute over such matters needs better sourcing than a book by a peddler of new-age woo. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's a weak source. I generally leave in the borderline ones but ultimately this is a list making biographical claims, so I don't have any objection to the removal of the source and the corresponding names. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Occupation still too promotional

I still wonder what purpose the 'Occupation' column serves, except to promote vegetarianism, when we have links to the articles on all subjects. I would like to propose deleting that column.

If we must have it then we should agree on some purpose and format. At the present we have a great disparity between the good and the bad, for example:

Adolf Hitler - Politician
Rudolf Hess - Nazi Politician

Éder Jofre - Retired professional boxer and former Bantamweight and Featherweight Champion
KRS-One - Rapper, record producer, actor, author, activist
Gaudiya Vaishnava - teacher, founder-acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness
Ilya Yefimovich Repin - Leading Russian painter and sculptor of the Peredvizhniki artistic school
Reshma - Renowned folk singer of Pakistan

Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one or two nouns would suffice in most instances i.e. rapper/boxer/Krishna guru/painter & sculptor/folk singer. If you limit it to a couple of words then that would remove the POV. Betty Logan (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is one possibility but it is quite hard to do in some cases. It also leads to the question of why we have the column at all. We have the links, which give a full bio of the subject, what is the point of a one/two word occupation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Because a list should be self-contained to an extent. For instance a reader may want to print it out or port it to another website, or they may just not wish to simply click through every name to find something out about the person's background. Betty Logan (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But why then just 'occupation'? That is just one biographical detail from many possible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

You have the nationality too. If you look at Wikipedia biographies they tend to have four basic details in the first sentence: name, dob/dod, nationality and occupation/notability. Those are the main ones and we have three of them. I wouldn't object to adding dob/dod if someone wanted to add it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, but let us try to keep it to one word as far as posssible, with generic names where needed. I will make a start. Are we the only two people who car about this page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I have done A-F. I have been fairly ruthless but some have still beaten me. Linking an capitalisation needs attention. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Problematic edit

A recent edit added Leonardo Da Vinci to the list and moved Adolf Hitler to the "disputed" section. There is a couple of issues with this edit.

The first problem involves the addition of Da Vinci, attributed to the International Vegetarian Union. The link does not work, but that aside the IVU is not a WP:Reliable Source. It is a vegetarian advocacy organization, and is not qualified to make biographical claims. Apart from there being no evidence of fact-checking, it is not neutral. This website has been previously called into question at Talk:List_of_vegetarians/Archive_3#Removing_a_questionable_source by Ian.thomson, who subsequently removed all entries sourced to it. I agree with his assessment of the source.

Secondly, the relocation of Hitler to the "disputed" section, which involved the removal of all sources citing historical evidence of his vegetarianism and replacing them with two suspect sources. The first source added was "Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover" by Rynn Berry. Berry is NOT a historian; he writes on vegetarian issues so in no way is he in a position to assess the historical case for Hitler's vegetarianism. The second source added was "The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler" by Robert Payne. Despite undertaking some historical writing, Payne was not a qualified historian either, and, as noted in his biography, his book about Hitler is regarded as poorly researched and contains numerous inaccuracies. It is not a reliable source for any claim about Hitler. As covered at Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism, it is generally acknowledged by historians that Hitler became vegetarian some time after 1937, and all historical records from 1942 onwards indicate he did not eat meat. Betty Logan (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia page on Hitler's vegetarianism, there is no conclusive evidence that he was completely or consistently vegetarian and that he indeed made various exceptions for animal foods. He does not belong in the section of vegetarians, and i s questionable at best. Mehtat (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no conclusive evidence of anybody else's vegetarianism on this list either. However, according to the Wikipedia page on Hitler's vegetarianism he identified as a vegetarian from 1941 and there is plenty of personal testimony from 1942 onwards that he no longer consumed meat and no evidence that he did. I'm sorry, but we don't set a higher bar for inclusion on this list for Hitler just because he was a mass murderer. Betty Logan (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Well actually all the citations and links don't seems to lead anywhere, even the archives for Hitler's diet. If a historian calls Hitler a vegetarian and another document shows him eating meat is that not a valid reason to put him into the disputed case? Also Wikipedia can't be used as a reference for Wikipedia that would be circular. And if vegetarian authors can't be used to show if people aren't vegetarian why can PETA be used as proof of being vegetarian? Seems like inconsistency. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look at the sources used in our Hitler entry the Wikipedia article is not used as a source. It does however provide a link to Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism which goes into detail explaining the background to Hitler's vegetarianism. There are many sources citing instances of Hitler eating meat (which these vegetarian orgainizations love to jump on as "proof" Hitler was not vegetarian) but they conveniently omit the fact that these predate 1941, which is when he started to self-identify as a vegetarian (a transition he began in 1937). By contrast, none of these sources provide evidence that Hitler consumed meat—other than that of subterfuge by his chef—after his transition; all witness testimony from then on including that of his food tester testify Hitler adhered to a vegetarian diet. So there is nothing disputed here: all the reported facts are consistent with Hitler's transition to vegetarianism. If we required that subjects are lifelong vegetarians then that would disqualify Hitler, and mostly everyone else on the list.

Secondly, known facts about people should not be treated the same as self-made claims. It is rather telling that the "Hitler wasn't vegetarian" brigade tend to rely on writing by vegetarian writers and a discredited Hitler biography rather than qualified historians. They are not qualified to make judgments regarding the authenticity of known "facts" about historical figures. Likewise, organizations such as Peta should not used to source facts about people because they are not neutral, but in theory they are probably reliable enough to cite direct claims made by people about themselves unless we have evidence that they are deliberately misquoting.

Ultimately Hitler was a complex man, and one of contradictions. On one hand he was a visionary, a war hero (during WW1) and a progressive reformer; on the other he was a fascist, a war criminal and a mass murderer. Our knowledge of this person shouldn't be shaped by agendas and historical revisionism just because we find him unpalatable. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Links for [183][184][185][186][187][188] are dead or nonexistent.

Reference for Leonardo Di Vinci's vegetarianism http://books.google.com/books?id=EOQEAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

References

Which refers to: http://books.google.com/books?id=A7dUhbBfmzMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false (I can make a reference for that if necessary

Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 06:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you give the page number or a verbatim quote please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Links 183 and 188 do seem to be dead and should be removed or updated. The others all refer to printed sources and are not online links. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Though, in a certain sense, he had nothing of his own and worked little, he always found means to keep servants and horses, of which latter he was very fond, as indeed of all animals ; he reared and trained them with as much love as patience. Often, passing the places where they sold birds, he would buy some, and taking them out of their cages with his own hand, restore them to liberty. A contemporary of Leonardo, Andrea Corsali, writes from India in 1515 to Giuliano de' Medici, that like " il nostro Leonardo da Vinci " the inhabitants of these regions permit no harm to be done to any living creature.^ This longing for affection, this liberality, this habit of looking upon their pupils as their

IE UNBELIEF OF S. THU.MAS, BY VERROCCHIO. (Or San Michele, Florence.)

1 It appears from Corsali's letter that Leonardo ate no meat, but lived entirely on vegetables, thus forestalling our modern vegetarians by several centuries. (Richter's The Literary Works of Leonardo da Vinci, vol. ii. p. 130.)"

Müntz, Eugène (1898). Conscious eating. London, England: W. Heinemann, 1898. p. 17. https://archive.org/stream/leonardodavincia01mn/leonardodavincia01mn_djvu.txt

Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not a reliable source saying that Leonardo was a vegetarian, it is an opinion of one writer about what another writer meant in a letter. Ther is no reference to meat at all in the orginal letter. We cannot say that Leonardo was a vegetarion on that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:04, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

These sources are circumstantial evidence that he possibly adhered to a vegetarain lifestyle. However the arguments are far from conclusive because mostly they refer to Da Vinci's views on animal welfare. Someone has tackled this very question that thoroughly at About.com (see Was Leonardo a Vegetarian? by Shelley Esaak). Now, About.com is not a reliable source and Esaak is not a qualified historian, but she has thoroughly researched the published literature on Da Vinci. Her conclusions: he possibly was a vegatarian but there is no conclusive evidence. I would certainly be up for incorporating Da Vinci into the "disputed" vegetarians section since there is definitely a debate about his status. As for the Hitler links, I will attempt to replace dead links with archive links; if I will move some in from his vegetarianism article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This link was rejected, not due to content but due to the source - http://www.fpp.co.uk/Hitler/house/Homes_and_Gardens_Nov1938/text.html

Can this be used to replace the dead guardian link? http://wow.blogs.com/photos/hitler/page193.html

The letter according to http://books.google.com/books?id=A7dUhbBfmzMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

says: We are led to believe that Leonardo himself was a vegetarian from the following interesting passage in the first of Andrea Corsali's letters to Giuliano de 'Medici: "Alcuni gentili chiamati Guzzarati non si cibano di cosa, alcuna che tenga sangue, ne fra essi loro consentono che si noccia ad alcuna cosa animata, come il nostro Leonardo da Vinci (130)," which is translated as "a certain tribe 'so gentle that they do not feed on anything which has blood, nor will they allow anyone to hurt any living thing, like our Leonardo da Vinci'.

Meat comes from "something which has blood," unlike "our Leonardo da Vinci"'s feed. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

And to quote from Esaak: "Did Corsali mean that Leonardo didn't eat meat, didn't allow harm to living creatures, or both? We don't know conclusively, because the artist, the explorer, and the banker weren't companions ... he appears to have known Leonardo through mutual Florentine connections. Though they were contemporaries, between the artist's time outside of Florence and the explorer's time outside of Italy, they did not have the opportunity to become close friends. Corsali may have been referencing Leonardo's habits through hearsay. Not that we will ever know" — All of this is interesting but far from conclusive. We are talking about someone from 500 years ago so it is difficult for anyone to know anything for sure. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to suggest that he might have been vegetarian but we are making assumptions to state it conclusively. As I said I don't mind adding him to the disputed list because a legitimate debate surrounds the question, but let's wait and see what Martin has to say on the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to list Leonardo as a vegetarian would be OR, in fact OR with a mission. There is a huge volume of literature on Leonardo, with many sources trying to 'claim' him for some philosophy or other. If there were general agreement amongst historians that he was vegetarian it should be easy to find several sources that clearly and directly state (I mean something unequivocal like, 'Leonardo was a vegetarion from ...to ...'). If there are such references from good authoritative sources we should list Leonardo as a vegetarian but until such references are produced we cannot do this.

Regarding the 'disputed' list, I am not sure we should have this list at all, so I do not much care whether he is in it or not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Its not like you would put da vinci on a list of people that conclusive ate meat (if one existed) either as there aren't any references of him eating meat. Disputed would make more sense then no mention at all I think, or rather 'inconclusive'. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)