Jump to content

Talk:List of vegans/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Flags

I removed the flags per WP:ICONDECORATION. This was a classic case of flag abuse. Feel free to remove any similar instances that you see. --John (talk) 10:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

They were already scheduled to be removed in order to match the List of vegetarians. The new table just hasn't been uploaded yet because I'm still working on the birth years. Thanks though. --Andomedium (talk) 10:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Citation templates and other stuff

I have restored the following, due to their removal without discussion or consensus:

  • Citation templates
  • Former vegans

I have also tagged the sources that I do not think meet RS criteria. There are three options for dealing with these: 1) replace the sources 2) remove the entries 3) remove the tags; in the case of the latter I will take them over to RS/N and get an impartial opinion before pulling them. If no action is taken about them, I will remove the entries once the RfC concludes and we start to make format changes to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

List restoration

  • Unless the RfC takes a dramatic change of direction, the RfC will conclude that the images in the tables should be removed and that the list should be ordered alphabetically. I will let the RfC finish its course, but we may as well start planning ahead. We were planning to port the list into a table format anyway, so I think we can use the existing one with a little tweaking. The original plan was along these lines. As you can see, the second table is almost identical to the current one, and we can simply replace the image column with a country column. I don't think it will be detrimental to the list to have the occupation and country columns the other way around.
  • As yet there is no decision as to whether we should sub-divide the list, but it would impair the functionality of a sortable table, so the easiest way would be to build the list as a single sortable alphabetic table, and then if any editors believe it should be divided into sections they are free to file an RfC.

Anyway, if anyone has any problem with this let me know! Betty Logan (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing policy

The policy can be read at Wikipedia:Verifiability. This allows self-published sources in articles such as this (see the section SELFPUB), as follows:

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the requirement in the case of self-published sources that they be published experts in the field, so long as:
  1. the material is not unduly self-serving and exceptional in nature;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.
This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

Please note that since this list documents biographical claims it is subject to Wikipedia's policies regarding biographies of living people as outlined at WP:BLPSOURCES:

Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable, and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources.

Needs third-party sources

Several of the people in this list are cited from PETA and other organizations that promote veganism. Because these organizations promote veganism, their publications mentioning vegans are questionable sources. This is different from quoting statements from the people in the list about themselves, which is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB. Where possible, citations from organizations that promote veganism should be replaced; otherwise, some of the people on this list may need to be removed to ensure WP:NPOV. G. C. Hood (talk) 22:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Names needing sources

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


RfC: Proposals for table format

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is an impasse in regards to the new table format for the list. All parties agree that the list should assume a sortable table format. However, there are currently two proposals that need resolving for the further development of the article:

  1. The table will include an image for each entry, as per [1].
  2. The table will be sorted by name, rather than country.

Betty Logan (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Statements by involved parties

  • AGAINST the inclusion of images in the table. As argued by both myself and User:Muleattack at [2] and [3], we feel it makes the table too big and cumbersome to scroll down. The list seems to go on forever. I have no objection to the images next to the table since they don't compromise its length, but I don't feel that having images in the table benefits it at all. Most lists don't include an image next to every name, and it's unnecessary here; it's not like veganism has anything to do with how anyone looks.
SUPPORT sorting the table by name. Most readers will use the list in the form of an index i.e. they will look someone up. The primary sort key in such cases is the person's name. In many cases a person's nationality will not be known and thus complicating a search. The divisions by nationality is completely arbitrary, and in most cases unrelated to the concept of veganism. Betty Logan (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AGAINST inclusion of images in the table. I'm sure that was well-intentioned, but it has become a big mess. NEUTRAL on sorting: I tend to think that doing so by name might be best, but I could also see that getting messy. If it does, I don't have a better means of sorting to suggest over nationality. CCS81 (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT the inclusion of images in the table. The images add a great deal of visual information that is not only interesting and informative but also aids readers significantly in identifying the people on the list. I knew this from the moment the first test table was created months ago but it was made poignantly clear when I added the images to the list and found that, between the List of vegans and the List of vegetarians there were many duplicate entries that I had never noticed despite having looked through both lists hundreds of times. Nobody had noticed them. I also found that there were dozens of famous people on the list that I didn't even know were there simply because the recognizability of their text names (especially amongst all the other text names) paled in comparison to recognizability of their faces. Before moving forward with the final inclusion of the images, I showed the list to at least eighty different readers and asked if they preferred the list with or without the images. Every single one of them preferred the list with the images. The lists still have some images that aren't as useful as others for identification because the lists are far from finished. Those less useful images will be replaced with cropped versions or alternate images. In fact it would have been nice if you had showed up after all this time to help with that, rather than starting this ridiculous effort to revert the hundreds of hours of work that have been put into improving and expanding these lists. --Andomedium (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AGAINST sorting the table by name. I'm going to assume that you're talking about the method used to separate the list into sections and not the method used to sort the entries within the tables themselves. I initially had the list sectioned alphabetically (by name) and didn't like the idea of sectioning by country, but after many hours of careful consideration, I realized that sectioning by country is actually more beneficial. Some reasons for my decision can be found here and here. I'll also point out that the majority of the readers are not using the list as an index to look up a name. The majority are browsing through the list to see who is a vegan/vegetarian. And amongst that majority, most are interested only in browsing through the people of certain countries and would therefore prefer that the list be sectioned by country. --Andomedium (talk) 07:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AGAINST inclusion of images in the table. I already made it clear before this started that I thought it would make the article too large in both scrolling and download terms and that's exactly what it's done. Also, because of the size of the pictures, unless they are a portrait, many are completely useless. People don't use lists to see photos, if they want that they visit the individual persons page.
  • SUPPORT sorting the table by name. The page would be so much easier to use if it was in one table, nationality can still be present and sortable but no need to divide it up using country. Muleattack (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Support Andomedium's work on this, including the tables and images, and the sub-sections if he thinks section editing is needed (if people want section editing, country of birth is the most obvious division because it's the only constant factor). If consensus is obtained to remove the images, editors should work from the current version. It isn't appropriate to wait until July 20 to do a wholesale revert [4] to a version from May 21, in order to remove some images; there were 87 revisions by 25 users between those versions, most of them Andomedium adding missing names, removing names of non-vegans, checking sources, and fixing dead links.

    This was the article before he started editing it in January; it was full of citation templates (but not consistently used), slow to load (especially diffs and preview), missing lots of names, and awkward to edit because a special colour-coding had to be used according to profession. Thanks to Andomedium, the page is faster to load and easier to edit — which is important because these lists are often an entry point for new editors — and he's still working to improve it. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Statement There are votes that were cast based on a belief that the intention is to create a single sortable table. That would be awesome if it could work but the whole reason the list was divided into sections (not by me) was to prevent a situation in which editors are forced to always do full-page editing on a large and ever-growing page. The primary purpose of creating multiple tables was to allow for section editing. People are casting votes without fully understanding the purpose of the images or the purpose of sectioning by country.
That's why there is first supposed to be a nice thorough discussion about these things and then, later, a vote. --Andomedium (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Statement "Too long" isn't a valid argument. This is why we have a table of contents and why browsers have scrolling and search features, and why the tables have sorting options & alphabetically arranged entries. An example of a valid argument would be: "the increased length is not worth the small contribution that the images make to the list". However, the contribution that the images make is actually huge, and the amount of length the images add to the list is far from being a serious enough issue to justify their removal.
As stated above, what we're supposed to do is determine whether the positive aspects of adding the images to the table outweigh the negative aspects to such an extent that they are worth adding. --Andomedium (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Additionally, these lists (this list and the List of vegetarians) are going to be growing rapidly and will soon need to be split up amongst multiple subpages simply because the amount of source text and number of references will be too great to keep on a single page. This page will likely serve as the index for those subpages. That's just something else worth taking into consideration if page length is actually that big of a concern for you. --Andomedium (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Splitting the lists though is not an argument for dividing each list by country, it's an argument for splitting the lists, and as other editors point out an alphabetic approach makes more sense. Besides, WP:SIZERULE states that there is no need for an article with under 40k of readable prose to be split. Readable prose in this case means our list of names, not wiki table code, not the footnotes, not the images etc. If we say that the average name is about 20 bytes, then that means the list can have up to 2000 entries, but since we are not even at 20% of the limit then we are nowhere near the criteria for splitting the list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
(1) That particular statement isn't related to sectioning the list by country and I'm not sure why you thought it was. (2) Sectioning the list by country -- though I initially didn't like the idea and even initially created the list sectioned alphabetically (by name) -- turns out to be the better option (see the information I provided above). However, this isn't a major concern of mine and could likely have been resolved without its inclusion in the RfC. (3) I'm not talking about splitting the list because of the given size limit; I'm saying that we're going to need to split the list because of the serious loading issues that are going to surface before we even reach the size limit (unless technological/Wikipedia advancements occur between now and then which prevent it). --Andomedium (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Currently the inclusion of the photos pushes the page content up to 3-4 meg and there are no loading issues, so I don't foresee any "serious loading issues" emerging once we dump the images, which looks increasingly likely. If loading times become an issue then a split can be dealt as and when. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
That's not the type of loading I'm talking about. The minor image loading delays are just typical image loading delays. The delay I'm talking about is some sort of source/wikitext processing delay that worsens as the number of entries increases, regardless of whether or not there are images. It's most apparent when previewing and saving edits. I've already run tests to confirm that a serious loading issue will arise. The most likely culprit is the refs but I haven't taken the time to confirm that yet. Maybe I'll do so later today. I have however confirmed (as I said before) that the templated refs have a significant negative impact on the loading. --Andomedium (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Opinions by neutral third parties

  • While inclusion of images is nice, this article has the potential of being a rather large list, and the inclusion of all relevant images would be both problematic and, as Betty Logan said above, make the page potentially very long to view. Regarding the sorting of the table, I could see it being constructed by country if in some way there were a very significant role of nationality in whether someone is a vegan. I am not sure that this is one such case, and on that basis, I think the alphabetical sorting might well be preferable. Alternately, one could sort them time, but I would probably have the same reservations regarding that means of sorting. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort by name Vegans do not represent their country. They are not doing for it patriotism, so sorting by country is not relevant.Curb Chain (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • AGAINST the inclusion of images in the table. There is no useful link between being a vegan/vegetarian and facial characteristics. The pictures make the table less easy to use because they increase the gaps between rows (especially disturbing with a differing row height). I don't believe we should be asking the reader to download about 3 MB of images for this list and 4 MB of images for the vegetarian list (where I'm assuming this RfC will also apply). I also believe we should remove the pictures down the right side of the page—except for any image that specifically relates to the subject's vegan/vegetarian beliefs (e.g. the Pamela Anderson "Turn over a new leaf" image). I would like to anticipate, and avoid, the situation where the list gets edited simply because an editor prefers one picture over another. There's also no reason for the names to be in a bold lettering, nor their cells to have a different background color, nor to be center-aligned. As it stands, the page looks too much like a school project as opposed to an article in an encyclopaedia. GFHandel ♬  21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
SUPPORT sorting the table by name. It would be interesting to see the list in one table—because then the sorting mechanism would makes sense (as opposed to the majority of tables where sorting the three or less names is meaningless). GFHandel ♬  21:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
There has always been an 'unspoken' consensus that the veggie and vegans lists should mirror each other, since the only reason they are separate lists is to keep the size down, and the same editors usually edit them. As for the images, really only one good image is needed at the top of the article, although 3/4 more positioned sparingly through the list certainly wouldn't be detrimental. Having a column down the side is overkill. Betty Logan (talk) 09:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT sorting the table by name. Veganism is a personal choice, not one that involves issues of nationality, so the country issue is not clear cut. If the list is too long for editing then division by letter blocks is always simple and straightforward. - SchroCat (^ • @) 23:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort by name, with letter (or group of letters) sections per Schrocat above.
  • Oppose images in table; makes the article way too long. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose images in table. Not common practice for lists of people and makes table too large for easy navigation. Elizium23 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose the images for each entry. While a few well chosen images can benefit lists, one per entry is too much. --Michig (talk) 11:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort by name, with letter (or group of letters) sections per Schrocat above.Whiteguru (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Sort by name (piling on to comments already made) - process as mentioned by Schrocat above will work well. Also agree that country (mention, flag or at all) is unnecessary as noted above. Images are beneficial to an encyclopedia, and when it comes to diet and nutrition, images also help reinforce that a particular diet might have health benefits (I'm not vegan or vegetarian, so this is not based on a bias). Imagine the reaction to a picture of a 400 pound vegan. I believe that the images are beneficial and should remain only so long as they do not burden the servers or the page load time. Vertium When all is said and done 12:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose images in the table. The page is slower to load than typical articles. To reduce the load time, its markup size should be limited by omitting images. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose images in table - this will likely become a very long list in time and inclusion of images for each entry would make the table very unwieldy, a problem for users accessing the site using less-powerful computers or devices with limited screen space; it also may be difficult to obtain images that meet criteria for publishing in Wikipedia for certain members of the list, distorting the balance of the entries; is the purpose of including images to promote veganism ("look at all the popular people who are vegan!" or "look how diverse the group of vegans is!")? that would seem an inappropriate use of Wikipedia. One of the other commenters here suggests that if there are health benefits or risks associated with veganism, it might be helpful to be able to see the images as they might illustrate those effects — however, the criteria for inclusion of images in the list are being famous, being known to be vegan (ie, people who are vegan but keep that info private will not be included), and having an image that is available for publishing in Wikipedia — these criteria would probably confound any attempts to draw any kind of scientific conclusions about the health effects of veganism based on face photos. Dezastru (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The images outside of the table will be retained, or rather they won't be removed as a consequence of this RfC, so any visual necessities can still be accommodated. If we come across a 200 pound vegan we can stick him in. Betty Logan (talk) 09:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • SUPPORT sorting table by name AND nationality - sorting by names is obvious, but why not also allow sorting by nationality/country? Most readers probably will be most interested in the names of vegans who share their or their family's nationality (or at least it would seem to be the case, as it is generally with other characteristics); also, there probably is a rough correlation between veganism (or of being known to be vegan) and nationality, something that might be interesting to see suggested by entries in a table. (Incidentally, if the table is sortable by name and by country, breaking up the list by country won't be necessary for easier navigation, since a double-sort can serve that purpose.) Dezastru (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The table will be sortable by nationality (pretty much everyone agrees on that aspect), this is just the 'hard' ordering of the list being discussed. Sorry if that isn't clear from the the RfC statement. Betty Logan (talk) 09:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion

The consensus—especially among the neutral editors—strongly favors the removal of the images from the table, and alphabetic ordering of the list. I will give it a couple of days before implementing any of these changes, just in case anyone disagrees with my interpretation of the consensus. This is a summary of opinion to date:

Images
  • Involved editors in favor of retaining the images (2): Andomedium, Slimvirgin
  • Involved editors in favor of removing the images (3): Betty Logan, CCS81, Muleattack
  • Neutral editors in favor of retaining the images (1): Vertium (with the caveat they do not slow the loading)
  • Neutral editors in favor of removing the images (7): John Carter, GFHandel, Miniapolis, Elizium23, Michig, G. C. Hood, Dezastru

Consensus to remove the images 10–3 (neutral: 7–1)

Ordering
  • Involved editors in favor of alphabetic ordering (2): Betty Logan, Muleattack
  • Involved editors in favor of retaining ordering country (2): Andomedium, Slimvirgin
  • Neutral editors in favor of alphabetic ordering (6): Curb Chain, GFHandel, SchroCat, Miniapolis, Whiteguru, Vertium

Consensus to order the list alphabetically 8–2 (neutral: 6–0)

Betty Logan (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2012 (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.

Neutrality

Can a "List of vegans" be neutral, without violating WP:NOT? A list of notable vegans seems like a coatrack used to promote veganism, whereas a list including non-notable vegans would be an indiscriminate collection of information inappropriate under WP:SALAT. G. C. Hood (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. So far as I can tell, the only objection in WP:NOT that you're advancing is 2.3, essentially identical to WP:COATRACK. I don't understand how a list of vegans "promotes" veganism any more than, say, a list of ancient Greeks promotes ancient Greekdom, or list of serial killers promotes serial killing. (I.e., these lists simply list individuals objectively. There is no commentary.) I'm also not sure what to make of the WP:SALAT objection. Sorry, you'll have to say more, otherwise it sounds ridiculous to my ears. Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a hypothetical: If the list included non-notable vegans, it wouldn't be promotional, but non-notable vegans wouldn't be suitable for inclusion in a stand-alone list. Consequently, since a "List of Vegans" would necessarily include only notable vegans, could it be neutral, or would it necessarily be a coatrack? G. C. Hood (talk) 04:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand at all, sorry. The list is intended for notable vegans, as the list of serial killers is intended for notable serial killers, the list of ancient Greeks is intended for notable ancient Greeks, etc. How is simply listing participants in something any form of endorsement that would qualify as a coatrack? You need to explain how listing spells endorsement, and why this is relevant to veganism specifically. Best, CCS81 (talk) 04:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see where he's coming from to an extent, there is a subtle difference he is highlighting; however, I don't think the problem is the existence of the list, it is the emphasis of the list. In the case of the serial killers, the killings are notable. In this case, these vegans are notable, but is their veganism notable? I think G C Hood is possibly highlighting something wrong with our approach, and it is worth a discussion. For instance, there was massive media coverage of Bill Clinton's conversion to veganism. True, it became a story because this was Bill Clinton, but the story was his veganism; this is a prime example of notable veganism, which arguably is what such a list should be documenting, rather than a notable person who just happens to be vegan. Another canididate would be Heather Mills, who has also received a lot of media coverage for her animal rights work. However, just have a quick look at the sources in use: many of them are sourced to PETA and animal rights websites which are in the business of promoting veganism; this is the inherent problem here, this list is possibly becoming a vegan advocacy article rather than a list of people who are notably vegan, and it is the latter that arguably justifies legitimate coverage. We should be possibly looking at a move away from animal rights/vegan websites, self-published sources, and looking squarely at mainstream secondary sources, to establish the person's veganism as notable. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I can see the concern with these kinds of problems, but I don't read that in what the user is objecting. So far as I can tell, the problem is not the contents of the list, but the act of listing, to which the user objects. I'll leave the former (contents) up to more engaged users; as for the latter (act of listing), I can't see how that is a problem. Best, CCS81 (talk) 14:16, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If it's something we can address through our approach then hopefully this dicussion might be constructive, but if the very existence of the list is being questioned there is nothing we can do bout that, and this discussion would be better at AfD. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
A list of vegans is no more a way to promote veganism than a list of Christians is to promote Christianity, or a list of Fascists to promote Fascism. To some extent what one thinks of it will be affected by knowing those who espouse it, and this can equally be positive or negative. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion has not advanced for a few months. Should the neutrality tag be removed? Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

James Cameron

[5] SirVivor (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam Lanza

Adam Lanza has been in the news recently. No reliable sources have been given for him being a vegan (the Washington Post article mentions in passing that he had become a vegan and was eating organic food), nor is his notoriety/notability due to that. There is no separate wikipedia article for him, just a redirect to the article about the shootings. In these circumstances, it seems WP:UNDUE to include his name in this list. Mathsci (talk) 04:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Many other sources provide the information, which apparently originated from a close friend of his mother. I actually replaced the link to WaPo article with a link to a Salon article that contains the interview with the friend. Most people in the list are notable for other reasons than their veganism (see e.g. the first two people named in the article: Brian Adams and Pamela Anderson). Even though currently there is no separate article for Lanza, the section of the shooting article to which the redirect leads is biographical. His historical significance, even though negative, is arguably larger than of many other people in the list. It has been argued above that the list is not neutral and only promotes veganism. That would be true if the list only included celebrities which are admired and purposefully omitted "bad" vegans. Bwv1004 (talk) 05:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Until there is a separate wikipedia article for Lanza (which is unlikely to happen in the near future), there is no justification for having him in the list. The only comparable entry is for Volkert van der Graaf. In that case there is a separate article which mentions his veganism. Mathsci (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
This is supposed to be discussion. Please address and try to refute my points instead of ignoring them. Stop attempting to threaten me ("unless you want to be banned"), pretending that you are enforcing rules (is there an accepted wikipedia rule stating that only people with their own articles. not redirects, can be included in lists?) or that you are clairvoyant ("unlikely to happen in the near future"). Like I said, Lanza _is_ significant. What he did affected a lot of people and is likely to lead to changes in US law. He is more notable/notorious that many people currently on the list: class-D celebrities, cookbook authors etc., even if they have their own wiki articles (e.g., Mike Mahler, Joan Dunayer, Sarah Kramer). Pepetrators of similar crimes often end up having their own articles (Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Seung-Hui Cho, Brenda Ann Spencer, Jared Lee Loughner, even if it is sometimes disputed James Eagan Holmes). Thus your prediction "unlikely to happen in the near future" is unsubstantiated. Bwv1004 (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Jim Cameron listed as American

Resolved

Why is Jim Cameron listed as "Country: 'United States'" when he was born and raised in Canada? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.127.194.69 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't a clue, perhaps because he lives there. I've correct the entry anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Active list

I haven't looked at this page for awhile. Can anyone say why we have sections for the UK and US, with everyone else in the "active" section? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

They are in the process of being transferred in to the main table like at List of vegetarians. The UK section is almost done and then it will be the US to do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Was that discussed somewhere? List of vegetarians is very slow to open and edit, so it would be good to avoid here whatever is causing that problem there. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there was an RFC about it. List of vegetarians opens up in a fraction of a second for me, so I don't think there is anything to avoid. Besides, I can't imagine the fact that having one table instead of lots of little ones has any bearing on the matter; if anything you would have more code to load up. Betty Logan (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
I was thinking that editing subsections would be easier than having to load the whole page to make an edit; I have difficulty loading List of vegetarians on several computers. Can you link to the RfC? I recall there was one a couple of years ago (writing from memory), but I thought we had agreed to have subsections, though I may be misremembering. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It will be in one of the archives. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
This is a rather moot discussion anyway. I actually have no objection to adding section breaks to the table. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
The only place I can find that addresses this is the Featured list criteria, point 4: "Structure. It is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities."

The question is what the section headings should be, if not country of birth. That was the criterion that struck me as most informative, and also something that wouldn't change. Or we could organize it by region (Europe, North America, Asia, Australasia), so there wouldn't be so many short sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The alphabetical ordering of the list was decided by an RFC just a few months ago. You had the opportunity to put your views across and I'm not going over all this old ground again with you. The list can have section breaks put in at arbitrary points like A–E, F—J and so on to make it easier to edit, it doesn't require a major restructuring job. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
The only RfC I can find is from July last year. That was mainly about images, and it didn't really produce consensus on whether to have sub-sections. The first question to ask is do we want one table, or do we want sub-sections (i.e. more than one table). Then, if the latter, do we want random breaks, geographical regions, countries or some other. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking around at featured people lists, List of brain tumor patients, List of HIV-positive people and List of poliomyelitis survivors are organized broadly by occupation, so that's another option. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no other option. You know full well what the outcome of the RFC was because you participated in it, so stop playing games. It took me literally 30 seconds to dig it out: Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_3#RfC:_Proposals_for_table_format. User:Beeblebrox closed the RFC in favor of removing the images and sorting the list by name. The turnout was 8-2 in favor of sorting by name, and 6-0 among the neutral editors. Section breaks can be added, but they will be within the confines of the very clear consensus that we have. Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You're being quite rude for no reason, telling me that I have a cheek, that you're not willing to "go over all this old ground" with me, and that I'm playing games. In fact, the only thing that's happening is that I'm disagreeing with you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
You are disagreeing with the collective opinion of eight editors, so this discussion really has nowhere to go. I'm happy enough to add sections to the list, which should address your concerns about "slow editing". Betty Logan (talk) 02:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Can you say why you added the "factual accuracy" tag, and what can be done to have it removed? [6] SlimVirgin (talk) 20:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is there to notify other editors of the page of the discussion and you will see it links straight to the RFC. Not everyone watches pages so may be unaware of the discussion, but may yet still have some relevant point to make. If you wish to remeove it then go ahead, it was a general courtesy for other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll go ahead and remove it. I think it's normally used when there are factual issues with the article that people haven't been able to correct. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Images

I'm getting a bit of white space after the "former" table owing to the number of images. Larger screens probably have more white space. A 1024*600 screen probably won't show any white space. I think, to be safe, a further 2 images should be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The whitespace is there because we used to have lots of little tables that were more spread out, and I plan to trim them down once the tables were fully merged. Personally I think most of the images could go, and maybe cut it down to three or four "iconic" vegans. You should have seen it last year when every single entry had an image in the tables. What is truly ironic is that it took ages to load and Slim opposed their removal, and now has the cheek to call it slow! Betty Logan (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
My issue
It was the templates that were slowing the page down, not the images. Crisco, I'm not seeing what you see – can you explain more what the problem is? As for the disputed and former tables, these were removed but I see they've been restored. Is there any reason to keep them? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The size of the table depends on one's screen size. If one has a screen with low resolution, the table may get bunched up and end up spanning more than one line; this will make it longer, and thus cover any whitespace. If everything is on one line (like at full resolution on my monitor) then there is still some whitespace. Not much, maybe about 4 or 5 lines, but some. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I removed the large Freston image to see if that helps, as you suggested above. What that does for me is leave the article without images along the side from Nathan Winograd down, but it's okay. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for suggesting the solution. I can see now from the image you uploaded what the issue was; you're right, it doesn't look good to have white space between the end of the article/images and the References section. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but what is the point of all these images? What exactly do they add to the article? Are we trying to showcase what a vegan looks like, because they look different from every other human out there, or are we simply trying to decorate the article from top to bottom?--114.205.84.126 (talk) 11:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

A bit of both I think. On one hand it shows the depth and breadth of the vegan community, and on the other it does aesthetically improve what would otherwise just be a long list of names. In some cases they do combat misguided prejudice, that someone on a vegan diet can't be suucessful at sport. In truth I don't think they add much encylopedic value so they are mainly decorative, but personally I can live with them or without them. Betty Logan (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The images combat that, or the list itself does? I'm not sure why it is wikipedia's place to do that. It should be simply informing and nothing else. If the images serve no encyclpedic purpose, then I'd suggest cutting it down to only a couple. If people really need to see someone's face, they can click through to the article on them, or hit google images. If someone ever wanted to print this list/article they'd have to print a bunch of pointless pictures with it. --114.205.84.126 (talk) 01:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking ahead

Betty Logan has left some suggestions on my talk page here for this list and List of vegetarians. I won't copy the post here without permission, but thank you, BL, for the suggestions, which are (for this list):

  • Complete the page as a single-table with sortable columns, with alphabetical breaks for ease of editing.
  • Any sourced entries that are reverted will be moved to this talk page.

Good idea about moving reverted entries to talk. We used to maintain a list of entries that had been removed, so I suggest we restore it and continue with it, so that others can look for sources.

As for the single-table, I don't agree that this is the best thing, but I'm willing to agree to it for now at least. I already started (on April 25) moving some into alphabetical position so that we no longer had the Active, UK and US sections. [7]

In addition, I think it would help a lot if Betty Logan were to reach out to Helpsome and to Andomedium. I don't know whether the latter will see anything left on his talk page, but I know he put a lot of work into this article over several months and was upset by the way it was reverted. Letting him know that he's still welcome here would be a good step. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I will reach out to them on the condition that you support me on the sourcing aspect i.e. if I move a source to this page on the grounds that I do not think it is reliable, then they will get it checked at RS/N before restoring. If we have an understanding on that I will extend the olive branch. Betty Logan (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'll agree to support you on the sourcing issue, though I don't think always going to RSN is necessary, but we could go to RSN if no agreement can be reached here on talk. What we should do is just stick to the policies: WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSPS. Actually, Andomedium was very strict on sourcing and on the parameters of who should be included as a vegan, almost too strict (in my view). SlimVirgin (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Sometimes sourcing issues can be cleared up, expecially in the case of SPS sites if we can authenticate it (same with official Twitter and Facebook announcements I guess). Sometimes the language can be ambiguous i.e. "I'm a strict vegetarian, I don't drink milk", isn't quite the same as "I'm a vegan" etc. Sometimes the problem can go away if a better source can be replaced. But what I'm essentially asking is that in those instances, we can keep the entry on this talk page until the issue or resolved either here or at RS/N. I will drop a note to both of them later, and see if they are ok with this system. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that should be okay so long as we don't engage in OR, per the RfC. Bear in mind that the source is always the subject; even if we're using secondary sources, no one other than the subject and those close to them really knows whether that person is a dietary vegan.

So self-identification should always be acceptable, unless the person really contradicts themselves ("I'm a dietary vegan except for the chicken sandwiches"). But someone who says: "I'm a dietary vegan but I must admit to having nibbled on some milk chocolate a few times" is still a dietary vegan, as is someone who says: "I don't eat animal products, but technically I don't call myself a vegan because I still wear leather." It's a question of common sense, and not being so strict that we're excluding people who are well-known for their vegan activism, just because they admitted to a lapse. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I would actually be ok with "I'm a vegan even though I wear leather", but if someone declares themselves not a vegan because they wear leather, then I do think that is an interesting case worth discussing. Anyway, I will leave messages for them to join this discussion since this largely depends on their willingness to participate too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that would be helpful. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I have left messages for Helpsome and Ando, so we will see where that gets us. We are still missing one member though in User:Muleattack who quit Wikipedia when he felt that his views here were being ignored, so in the spirit of trying to move on maybe you could invite him to join the discussion here? Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I can agree with the formatting suggestion but there is no world where I would agree that Betty can remove whatever she wants under whatever reasoning she wants and the person who was reverted is forced to take it to WP:RSN to defend his or her addition. That is far too much power invested in one person. Helpsome (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But what I am asking for, is the exact same privilege you have invoked yourself against edits:
  1. [8] – Here you add Beau Bridges, an edit that everyone accepted.
  2. [9] – Here you revert someone without providing a reason (although I agree with your revert)
  3. [10] – Again you revert without providing a reason (although I agree with your edit)
  4. [11] – Here you revert some vandalism without providing a reason (although no-one would object to this edit)
  5. [12] – Here you add Tobey Maguire.
  6. [13], [14] & [15] – Successive reverts by you were you do not attempt to obtain a consensus on the talk page.
So will you please explain to me why it is acceptable for you to unilaterally remove the contibutions of other editors, but it is not acceptable for another editor to remove your contributions? How is what I do any different to what you do? It is the prerogative of each and every editor to revert an edit they do not agree with in accordance with WP:BRD, and then they should seek a WP:CONSENSUS to restore it. This is the accepted methodology of editing on Wikipedia, so all I am asking for really is that you follow the rules. Betty Logan (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you couldn't revert. The difference is I am not trying to create a policy where I can do whatever I want and everyone else has to jump through the hoops I created to reverse the (sometime arbitrary) decision. Helpsome (talk) 14:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not trying to create a policy, I am trying to propose a system that facilitates BRD and CONSENSUS. The policy is that I, you, or anyone can revert an edit if they disagree with its nature. The policy is that the edit can be restored if there is consensus to do that. So the question here is what form should my reverts take, and what form should a resulting consensus to restore it take. If you have any suggestions then please put them forward. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
For the most part, new entries should be removed only if the edit doesn't comply with the sourcing policies, and the two policies that apply here are WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSPS. The latter says we can use self-published sources by the subject (e.g. the subject's personal website) so long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity," with the stress on "reasonable". If we stick to those policies, there should be few problems.
In the small number of cases where, despite sticking to the policies, we're still unclear as to whether a person is a vegan (e.g. they say "I'm a vegan," then do something that's clearly non-vegan), the editor reverting should add the entry to a special section here on talk, where other editors can look for better sources before restoring. If we all stick to this system, we'll be laughing and scratching. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The only case where a black and white interpretation actually resolves the situation is when someone adds an unsourced entry. In reality most editors agree about most sources, but occasionally we get differences of opinion. How about this: if I disagree with a contibution I can move it to the talk page, and then if someone else other than the original editor chooses to restore it then the onus is on me to get a ruling at RS/N? At least then unilateral decisions by either side are taken out of the equation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
That sounds great. I could and would support that. Helpsome (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Just so we are clear on this: if you add an entry and I challenge it I will move it to the talk page and you will not restore it. If someone else comes along, whether that is Slim or another editor and they disagree with my decision then they can act as a third opinion and restore the entry. If I still disagree then I will get the entry vetted at RS/N and we stand by the outcome whether that is in my favor or yours? Betty Logan (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I have a concern that we're going to be endlessly bogged down in process and RSN discussions. So I'd like to see a commitment first from BL that they're going to stick to WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSPS, and that it's only for the rare cases that those policies can't deal with, that we go to RSN.
Also, when it comes to reverting unsourced, it would make more sense first to type the name into Google, just to make sure you're not removing a well-known vegan. I'm not saying we should have to spend ages tracking down a source, but if one is obvious, then it makes sense to add it, rather than revert.
If BL will agree to stick to WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSPS, then I'm happy to agree to the other things discussed here. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how clearer I can make this. These disputes don't occur because I ignore WP:SOURCES and WP:BLPSPS, they occur because I interpret it differently to you. If my interpretation is that a source provided is not consistent with them then we have to get bogged down in process to a degree to resolve the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, so which one of the two do you interpret differently, or is it both? And what is the different interpretation? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The interpretation depends on the source. If you feel a source meets the criteria and I don't, that's where the dispute lies. If I have to cart off every source I disagree with to RS/N then ultimately that is what I will do, but that places even more emphasis on process than the proposal put forward here. Betty Logan (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you give an example of where we've had a different interpretation? One of the difficulties I've having here is that very few of your disputes have been with me, yet last year and during this recent dispute, you try to place me at the centre of it. But I've invested very little time on this page – I've made 73 edits to your 496 – so I have no idea how you interpret the policies or how you think I do. Some examples would help. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_3&oldid=1079344501"