Jump to content

Talk:The Vegan Society/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

complaints

[edit]

I am surprised that this page has at least one/few grammar mistakes, though I who (only went to 1st year in the UK and visit every few years, and) made the US society's page, do not think I made as many mistakes. Perhaps in the last statement I took 'passive voice too far and did an 'implied "I"', but this articles page may make 1 - 3 comma splices and use unconventional grammar--like dashes instead of hyphens (and using spaces beside them is less accepted.) This is just to let you know about that and say (the following.)

If you want to improve this article as I imply (or explain I may be wrong:) such as by combining the articles and then combining every single international 'Vegan Society' or one that uses the logo, then please do so. So far I used this article as a template, but some info is only relevant to each society. I do think one large article with introductory Philosophical focus/definition and sections for each would be excellent; I just study (in college and Wikis) too much to do that now....

A later comment: hehe, okay, the dashes' spaces thing is either because En.Wikipedia is American-made, or maybe the spaces are not so large--but what do you think of that and forced use of new 'one space after period' formatting? If your html reader forces ':)' to be smiley in discussion/forums, then that is also a problem--Dchmelik (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

complaints 2

[edit]

Why are random phrases in this article bolded? It looks like childish emphasis. Really, only the article subject and variations thereof should be bolded. 76.119.140.100 (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Vegan Society. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Founding date

[edit]

The Vegan Society states: "It is interesting to note that although the founding of The Vegan Society is celebrated each year by The Vegan Society on the 1st of November, the actual date when the society was founded is not known. The first quarterly magazine of the new society was dated the 24th of November, and it was the single-handed production of Donald Watson, who was at that time a teacher of woodwork. It seems likely that the founding meeting took place on either the 5th of the 12th of November. Given the very labour intensive process to produce the first issue of Vegan News […] it seems probable that The Vegan Society was founded on the 5th of November 1944."

I will therefore replace "on 1 November 1944" by "in November 1944". -- IvanP (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Separation from Vegetarian Society

[edit]

Looking at the research being done by John Davis, historian of the IVU, the reasons for the separation of the Vegetarian Society does not appear to be as stated on the article. [1] --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Various suggested amendments

[edit]

I am a paid employee of The Vegan Society working in communications. I am also a sometime historian of The Vegan Society. I would be grateful if the suggestions below could be considered.

1. "The Vegan Society is a registered charity and the oldest vegan society in the world, founded in the United Kingdom in November 1944 by Donald Watson and his wife, Dorothy, along with four friends—Elsie Shrigley, Mr G. A. Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson were among them.

Dorothy Watson was not a founder member of The Vegan Society, did not attend the founding meeting on 5 November 1944 and I do not think she was ever a member of the society. Dorothy was ovo-lacto-vegetarian and never became a vegan. Donald and Dorothy's daughter was raised a vegetarian and never became vegan.

2. "However, the founding of The Vegan Society is thought to have been either 5 or 12 November 1944."

Sally Shrigley writing in The Vegan some years later says that the date was 5 November.

3."The word 'vegan' was coined by Donald Watson and his then-future wife Dorothy Morgan from the first three and last two letters of 'vegetarian' in 1944".

Watson later says that the word ‘vegan’ was created from the first and last letters of ‘vegetarian’ because the diet grew out of vegetarianism and was seen as its natural conclusion. The coining of the word ‘vegan’ is usually credited to Donald Watson or to acombined effort by Donald and his wife Dorothy. However, Watson credits founding member Mr G. A. Henderson and his wife Fay K. Henderson as the source of the idea for the word ‘vegan’. Fay K. Henderson later wrote the first cookery book with ‘vegan’ in the title. Before the appearance of the first issue of the newsletter, Mr and Mrs Henderson had suggested the name ‘Allvega’ with ‘Allvegan’ as the title of the magazine. It was from this that the name ‘vegan’ was taken by Watson. Watson notes that the Hendersons had written to say that they approved of the shorter title." Source:Ripened by Human Determination pages 3 - 4.

4. "Vegans separated from the Vegetarian Society because that group refused to support veganism, which they saw as extreme and antisocial".

As has already been noted this sentence needs revision. The Vegetarian Society was asked to provide a vegan page in its journal. It was considered but its trustees felt that its inclusion might not be comfortable for its vegetarian membership. They suggested that the non-dairy -vegetarians might form their own society. The rest, as they say, is history.

5. "Their 30 Day Vegan Pledge has been running since 2008, each day providing a recipe, tips, and advice on going vegan. The Vegan Society also offer tools for activists such as free leaflets, as well as advice on effective outreach."

The society also offers a 7-day Plate Up for the Planet challenge (pledge) and VeGuide, a free go vegan app.

6. "Campaigns – The Vegan Society campaigns on multiple issues. Current campaigns involve improving hospital catering and their 'Grow Green' campaign, whereby farmers are incentivized to move from animal farming towards plant protein crops."

Other campaigns include environmental campaign Plate Up for the Planet, Future Normal (futurenormal.org.uk) and Vegan and Thriving.

7. "Support – The Vegan Society provides support via its UK network of local contacts as well as a free email-in service."

The Vegan Society provides support via its VeGuide app, Plate Up for the Planet 7-day challenge, 30-day vegan pledge and via email and social media.

8. "Registers vegan products with its Vegan Trademark – ensures all products and its derivatives that are registered are free from animal ingredients and testing. The Vegan Society defines 'animal' as all vertebrates and invertebrates, meaning its animal testing policy does not exclude insects, water fleas or any other creature."

Vegan Trademark - The society has registered over 50,000 vegan products with its Vegan Trademark. The Vegan Trademark ensures all products and their derivatives that are registered are free from animal ingredients and testing at the initiative of the company (brand owner and manufacturer if separate) or on its behalf, or by parties over whom the company has effective control. The Vegan Society defines 'animal' as all vertebrates and invertebrates, meaning it dpes not register products that have been tested on insects, water fleas or any other creature.

Founded November 1944; 76 years ago

Founder Donald Watson

Type Charity

Focus Promoting veganism

Location Birmingham

Area served International

Method Information, support, campaigns, policy, research

Members 8,500 (in 2021)

CEO Louise Davies (interim)

Key people Donald Watson

Website www.vegansociety.com

--Vhist1847 (talk 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vhist1847: I went ahead and added a request edit tag to the top of this section so that other editors can more easily find/address this request. Hopefully it helps. Cheers - Whisperjanes (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Vhist1847, your request is much more likely to be acted on if it:
  1. Asks for one edit at a time
  2. Is in the format of "Change X to Y"
  3. Provides a clear reason in the form of a link to a reliable source saying something that supports the change, if appropriate. —valereee (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't comment on the other material but I believe that the founding and history of the early days of the Vegan Society needs to be expanded and re-written. There is contradictory information about the early days of the Vegan Society, this website has the early history [2], Leslie Cross disagreed with Watson's definition of veganism and took it into an animal rights direction. The Vegan Society changed the definition of veganism many different times (14 in total) according to this link [3]. But we need good reliable references that mention the early days of the Vegan Society, there are some peer-reviewed articles out there which need to be added. I would like to add and improve a history section of the Vegan Society on this article but I am busy with other things right now, it will be a work in progress. If I find anything I will put it here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:44, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entirely unreference, anonymous website "vegansociety.today" doesn't match Wikipedia standards for a reliable source & can be safely ignored by Wikipediana & vegans alike. Who are they? In short, it appears to be someone with their own POV to grind trolling the movement. For example, Watson in his last interview praised Cross highly for his contribution to it.
I've tried to reformat the comment by the Vegan Society employee to make it easier to read. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. You need to provide reliable sources for your changes. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iyo-farm the information on the vegansociety.today website is exclusively taken from the Vegan Society's own publications including their newsletter and reports which can all be found online in full [4]. I am not saying it is a reliable source to be citing on the article itself that is why I put it here but it is useful for background information about the formation of the Society, no other website on the internet has this information. It is clear from the evidence that the original Vegan Society was based on dietary veganism. Leslie J. Cross was an animal rights activist and he turned the Society into an animal rights organization. The position Cross argued for was Abolitionism (animal rights) which was very extreme. Cross took over the Vegan Society in 1950 by that time it had 600 members but 4 years later it had 140 members, was nearly bankrupt and had a smaller newsletter. Also as the website notes "The treasurer's report at the end of 1952 showed that there had been almost 100 cancellations of memberships after Cross's new Constitution and his re-definition of "vegan. There had been only a handful of new members since the animal rights vegans took over in late 1950." [5]. Cross was destroying membership of the Society and he reigned in 1956.
It should also be noted that Cross stripped Donald Watson of his honorary title in 1950, this was not restored until 1988 (Cross died in 1979). After Cross resigned from the Society, membership increased. Cross's definition of veganism was very different than Watson's. Another interesting fact is that some of the early notable members of the Vegan Society were consuming honey. As for who wrote the vegansociety.today website it has often claimed to be John Davis (who you have cited), although others claim Jeff Nelson [6] who cited the website. I am not really interested in who runs it. It contains the best information about the formation of the Society taken from the newsletters of the Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As for reliable sources that we can use on the article [7] Cole, M. (2014) ‘‘The Greatest Cause on Earth’: The historical formation of veganism as an ethical practice’, in N. Taylor & R. Twine (eds) The Rise of Critical Animal Studies – From the Margins to the Centre, Routledge. Is a good source that mentions the formation of the Vegan Society. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a self-published anonymous blog expressing the authors personal bias, it fails WP:SPS, WP:OR & WP:PSTS 100%. That you've swallowed it hook, line & sinker & allowed it to color your opinions, putting aside those 3 foundational policies, raises questions about your own participation in the article, & the recent edits that I've questioned below & you've ignored.
The short answer is, you'll just have to wait until reliable source comes to such conclusions & has them published. FWIW, & it's not very much for the reasons given, Watson's comments in defence & praise of Cross also from the same primary source (Vegan Society's own published material).
The author of the anonymous blog WP:SPS clearly has their own bias, which perhaps you share, but we have no idea who they are, or what their agenda is. I could point out other garbage that would completely destroy their credibility were they to attempt to have their conclusions published in a journal but here is not the place to do so.
Please revise the refered to policies, along with WP:BALANCE. If you know or find out who they are, I'd be very interested to read. But I think you'll find they don't reply to correspondence, thereby sinking their credibility even lower. You can't use another source & pretend it says what they do. (I haven't read Cole, have you?) --Iyo-farm (talk) 12:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iyo-farm I agreed with you that it is not a reliable source but it is useful for historical information that is why I put it on this talk-page not the article itself. I am not not sure why you are acting so aggressive and angry over this topic. The Vegan Society over the years according to their own newsletter changed the definition of the word vegan 14 times [8]. That is a fact. At times they were accepting people to eat honey and at other times they did not. That is a fact, you can go and read their own newsletters if you do not believe me but the website in question has done a good job in compiling that information for the public. That information is factual it is not "opinion".
Donald Watson was a dietary vegan (there are photographs of him in leather clothes and shoes) and some of the early notable members of the Vegan Society were eating honey. Leslie J. Cross took the Vegan Society in the direction of ethical animal rights (abolitionist veganism) and it was too extreme for many of the early members back then and they resigned (this is not the case today). You can easily compare Leslie J. Cross's definition of veganism to Donald Watson's it is very different (are you claiming they were the same?). I am not so sure why you find this so controversial. All that is being said here is that Cross was more of an animal rights activist than Watson was. Matthew Cole who works for the Vegan Society [9] covers Cross's involvement in ethical veganism in his paper. I am not saying Cole agrees with the website in question (maybe I will email him one day and ask him?) but he certainly does agree that Cross was an ethical vegan and he was the first to take the Vegan Society in that direction so that is one point I have argued here. I think even you would agree with this claim, the ethical veganism direction started with Cross. The article could easily be expanded with the Cole source and describing Cross's involvement with the Society. If you type "Leslie J. Cross" and "Vegan Society" on Google books you can get access to this paper. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The vegansociety.today website was written by John Davis he is a well respected vegetarian historian. As of 2018 the website is no longer updated nor is their email active. You can contact John through the vegsource website admin. 82.132.228.48 (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@82.132.228.48,

Thank you for that confirmation. If he's messed up with Jeff Nelson, then it all starts to make sense, even moreso given his partisan involvement with vegetarianism since the 1990s.

I note, for example, one of his publications entitled "Vegans are Vegetarians too"

I can't find any peer review material produced by him, nor any professional CV, so it's self-published WP:OR until some academics go through it.

If he's so well respected, why is it anonymous? --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy,
Before I response to your distraction, might you answer my concern about weight & balance?
I am not "acting so aggressive and angry", I'm just reminding you of the rules, & you're parroting precisely what's been published on that anonymous blog as if it was fact.
As an example of the dangerous fallacies & contortions, what would you expect him to be wearing in the 1940s England? Do you think vegan footwear was invented prior to the vegan movement & available under rationing? Or perhaps that he ought to have turned up to his wedding barefoot or in Wellington boots? Do we have a receipt to prove they were leather, or just a black & white photo? That site is clearly intent on discrediting & confusing the discussion by someone committed to vegetarianism.
We know that what turned Watson to his vegan path was the witness of a pig slaughter so, no, that was not a dietary concern on his behalf. I'm sorry but you've been very misled by this unreliable source.
"“I hesitate to single out anyone, but I would say Leslie Cross and Arthur Ling must be put in the records as being the two outstanding, faithful contributors to our cause ... [Cross] was certainly one of the outstanding people who have served the movement and, in retirement, he went up and down the country, giving his lecture, “The Milk of Human Kindness” – all voluntarily of course, paying his own expenses." - Donald Watson.
You're probably referring to “The Greatest Cause on Earth: The historical formation of veganism as an ethical practice,” chapter by Matthew Cole? Take a 1944 quote, among many, "We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies."
That, to me, doesn't read as a health concern.


Then, if factchecked correctly, "The vegan believes that if we are to be true emancipators of animals we must renounce absolutely our traditional and conceited attitude that we have the right to use them to serve our needs". His writing & conception is at least that of an animal liberationist. He also saw the movement as evolutionary, & liberative for human beings. Dietary, no.
Thank you. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vegetarian boots and shoes were advertised by the Vegetarian Society as early as the 1850s and there was many adverts in the 1890s in their newsletter. Josiah Oldield experimented with many different substances. Vegan shoes were around before Watson. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes you have cited are not on the definition of veganism. The earliest definition of veganism by Watson for the Vegan Society was purely dietary. Before the Vegan Society was created, Donald Watson in November 1944, released "The Vegan News" newsletter (Quarterly Magazine of the Non-Dairy Vegetarians) which stated it is proposed that the Vegan Society shall have but one rule, as follows:
“I desire to be enrolled as a Member of the Vegan Society, and during my period of membership I promise not to partake of fish, flesh, fowl, eggs, animals’ milk or any of its products, and also that I will not consciously use foods in any of the above are included. In their place I will use the wholesome products of the vegetable kingdom.” One rule. Yes dietary.
In April 1945, Watson and his friends formed a committee to form the Vegan Society in London. In their manifesto they defined veganism and the aims of the Society. Here is the earliest definition of veganism by Watson "Veganism is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products." The only rule was to eat a vegan diet, nothing else. You did not have to be an "animal liberationist" to join the Vegan Society to be a vegan in 1945. Nobody is denying that Donald Watson was very interested in animal rights and he wrote about it but the earliest definition of veganism from the Society was purely dietary. Do you see now why you are wrong? I have given you the original definition and we have reliable sources that mention it. Just to be clear I agree with the material you have quoted but I am after the original definition of veganism by Watson which I have cited as did the website. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iyo-farm, you added this source to the article [10] "The Origins of the Vegans: 1944-46" an online presentation but this is not a reliable source as it is self-published and no different than the vegansociety.today website that you have criticized. Also the author of the above link is John Davis a close friend of Jeff Nelson. Davis is the same man who wrote all the material on the vegansociety.today website. On page 10 of Davis's "The Origins of the Vegans: 1944-46" it lists Watson's original definition of veganism which I listed above "VEGANISM is the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains and other wholesome non-animal products". John Davis lists this as being "the first definition of veganism". So the first recorded definition of veganism in the world supports what I have said not what you have claimed. You have cited this source on the Wikipedia article and you are happy to cite it (its self-published) but you have not cited Watson's definition of veganism which is mentioned in this source. You can read over "The Origins of the Vegans: 1944-46" from page 1, the whole thing is about diet. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Psychologist Guy,

Make sure to 'play the ball not the man', as you have done a couple of times already. No, the vegansociety.today website is an anonymous blog. Its status has nothing to do with any criticism I might have of it (although I think it's junk produced by clearly partisan players in the movement), it fails WP:Reliable Sources, so no more mention of it.

It's only your assertion that Davis has any connection with it.

I mentioned Nelson involvement as he's notorious unreliable source, critic of the AR movement, a "honeyist" and a "health" vegan, describing them as "crazies", "circle-jerk vegans", "whacko extremists" or "dogmatic religious vegans"[11]. You've just underlined their collusion over all this.

As a further joke, Nelson refers to Davis as "Sir John Davis OBE" on one of his presentations. Sir John Davis OBE was the chief of the Rank Organisation, not some vegetarian amateur historian.

I didn't add 'The Origins of the Vegans: 1944-46'. It is a very old reference posted by someone else, however, I am not challenging it as it contains references giving it validity & is at least authored. A shorthand to those references if you like.

So, to avoid WP:OR what better, independent sources are there to replace Davis? (I'll need to re-read the article to see what else it is that you are talking about). --Iyo-farm (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've read over 'Origins', by Davis & the relevant parts of his 'History' pdf, & I think you're missing a salient point. Watson saw veganism as a "non-dairy vegetarianism", therefore his motivations were rooted in his motivations to become vegetarians, which - as recorded - were not for health or diet's sake but for the animals, e.g. 11th IVU World Vegetarian Congress, July 1947: "Mr. DONALD WATSON (Leicester), said that the vegan believed that if they were to be true emancipators of animals they must renounce absolutely their traditional and conceited attitude that they had the right to use them to serve their needs." You know the pig story.
The term was "true emancipators of animals", aka animal liberationists.
Yes, that was achieved & differentiated by the further refinement of diet from other vegetarians, but it wasn't simply about health or diet. You're excluding the context within which it all happened. The very first lines, of the very first newsletter, refers to a concern about "cruel exploitation and slaughter of highly sentient life" and "ethical grounds for the disuse", comparisons between human slavery and animal slavery, and the motivation to give it up being "humanitarian". It even involves a critique of vivisection.[12] --Iyo-farm (talk) 02:28, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

[edit]

I'm a little concerned, partly due to the paucity of other content, at the undue weight of the new "Controversy" section. It's a little WP:NOTNP.

Within the context of yet undocumented history 77 year old history, I think it could probably be summarised down a single sentence. --Iyo-farm (talk) 04:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you are saying but this article is a work in progress and I plan on expanding it, so we can use the Cole source and others to expand the history of the Society and we can get a few good paragraphs there but not 77 years of its history which no independent sources have documented in detail. There are limited academic independent sources out there that mention the Vegan Society but I know of a few. The coverage only goes so far. One section should be improved at a time but we will eventually improve this article with content so I have no problem with the controversy section. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I know for a fact that Watson's & the society's archive, & other material, is in the processed of being archived at this time (the academics may have concluded), from which we should expect better sources to arise. So it may just all be a little premature.
I have a problem with the controversy section on the grounds given above, primarily "not news" & "weight". It should probably be reduced to one line until it becomes clear whether it had any significance at all to the history. I suspect not. --Iyo-farm (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Regardless of its weight, there seem to be a number of other issues with the Controversy section...

1. The Vegan Society references are primary sources from a party with a vested interest. (Notably, this section does not also reference the trustees' online resignations statements, resulting in the perspective of only "one side" being presented.)

2. The Telegraph article was subsequently amended, and an apology issued (suggesting that this wasn't the most reliable source either).

3. This section misgenders Eshe Kiama Zuri ('she had been "forced out" of the Society') despite explicitly referencing their misgendering.

4. Some of the section's claims are not supported by the references. For example, The Vegan Society has not published Omambala's report on their website, only the executive summary. The Board minutes show that they voted to release the full report (once suitably redacted) but reversed this decision after the trustees' resignation.

Overall, I do not consider that this accurately summarises either the facts of the situation or the content of the specific articles. Therefore, given past conflict on this page, I would suggest that this section is reviewed by an experienced and impartial editor (and probably removed until that happens).

WhalesFromWales (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Point 3 and 4 are minor but have been corrected. Unfortunately you are Iyo-farm and you are sock-puppeting again. It's very likely you are Iyo-farm he is the only user continuing to create socks here and use IPs to remove that specific section, no other user has done that. Also you ident your comment exactly the same way as he does by leaving an entire line gap at the end of your comments that is a very specific piece of behavioral evidence. Iyo-farm also typically on many occasions leaves two lines before he replies to someone else. No surprise you did the same. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I welcome the corrections on points 2 and 3, but repeat my call for review by an experienced and impartial editor. Psychologist Guy's comments demonstrate that they do not meet such criteria. For instance, I am not Iyo-farm, and my use of whitespace in no way indicates otherwise, I merely posted in the way that I felt was most clear (and as had been done for the comment immediately prior). One might just as well argue that I am Psychologist Guy (and/or vhist1847) for putting my signature on a new line, while Iyo-Farm and Orange Mike put theirs at the end of their last line. (Are they supposed to be the same person too?) I have posted with my IP address on this occasion to provide evidence to my identity, but would happily provide proof to an independent third party. (Indeed, were I actually Iyo-farm, Psychologist Guy would probably have breached Wikipedia's policy on identifying users too.) I would remind Psychologist Guy that is also against Wikipedia policies to make personal accusations or to attack contributors rather than engaging with their arguments. I can only presume this is intended to discredit anyone who disagrees with their personal opinions. While Iyo-farm was correctly removed for breaching Wikipedia policies, Psychologist Guy now appears to be doing similarly in an attempt to exert authority over this page. WhalesFromWales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.159.20.209 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I have not outed anybody, I have merely accused your account of sock-puppetry which is not against any policy. Your indenting is the same as Iyo-farm, it is very unique, compare [13] to yours [14]. Leaving two gaps at the top is unique and you leave a gap at the bottom before signing. I have been on Wikipedia a long time and not seen that. You can check the history of this talk-page no other user does that apart from Iyo-farm. Not me or Orange Mike. Also no other user has taken recent interest in this article's talk-page apart from Iyo-farm who is obsessed with trying to remove the "controversy" section. This talk-page is low-traffic. Iyo-farm was last on this talk-page yesterday then you show up 24 hours later saying the same things as him. I have filed an SPI [15] which if fails I will indeed apologise.
Your other claims are incorrect. You are trying to lecture me about "Wikipedia policies" (but you are supposed to be a brand new account?) and accusing me of being "impartial" (Iyo-farm said the exact same thing). I have improved over 2000 articles on veganism and vegetarianism. I founded the WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism which now has about 18 active members to improve and create articles related to this topic. I have written over 240 Wikipedia articles, over 60 were vegans or vegetarians. I have spent a lot of time scanning old newspaper articles and photographs on veganism and vegetarianism to WikiCommons. I am one of the few people in the world who has extensive knowledge about the history of veganism and I am in regular email communication with historians. I probably have one of the biggest book collections on vegetarianism in the UK. Your claims about "not experienced" are false. I approach this subject from a neutral scholarly point of view. I am not scared to admit that a good majority of vegans and vegetarians have promoted quackery and I do not believe in supressing criticism of vegetarianism or veganism from Wikipedia, we should cite all available reliable sources. Your agenda to remove anything controversial related to the Vegan Society is not neutral editing. I do not believe in suppressing critical sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you haven't "outed" anybody, because I am not Iyo-farm! But to clarify a couple of final points, I don't accuse you of not being experienced, just of not being impartial; and I believe that a review should be conducted by someone who is both. Secondly, I do not have an agenda to "remove anything controversial related to the Vegan Society", otherwise I wouldn't have raised concerns about the article only referencing The Vegan Society's version of events (rather than the former trustees who were very critical![16]) Instead, I wish to see impartial (or at least balanced) sources used. Clearly, The Vegan Society is not impartial on such controversial matters, nor partisan mainstream press. The coverage by the UK charity sector media is probably more relevant (e.g. Third Sector News[17], Civil Society[18][19]).
I've addressed the rest of your points in the SPI[20], so won't repeat them here, as they're not really on topic for this page. Instead, I'll leave it there, and look forward to that apology.
MoreWhalesFromWales (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iyo-farm vandalizing the article

[edit]

Iyo-farm who is indef blocked from Wikipedia is now evading his block by using mobile IPs.

Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Protected 2 days. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The user The_Iyo-farm and the revision in dispute, e.g. [21] weren't me. It's a bogus account set up to discredit the changes in the article.

I'm presuming by the warring user, Psychologist Guy.

I'd like someone to check the IPs, confirm this, & take action appropriately.

Disagreements with content is one thing, but setting up bogus accounts to discredit another is too much.

It's also not vandalising, it's applying WP:UNDUE to Psychologist Guy's attempt to discredit the topic's subject.

Thanks. --Iyo-farm (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2027 (UTC)[reply]

82.132.229.226 just tacitly admitted by their edits to being a block evasion account; I've blocked them. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:54, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is getting out of hand. Iyo-farm is still editing this talk-page on mobile IPs [22], I have reverted twice. I am not going to revert him again. It might be a good idea to temporally protect this talk-page. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Vegan_Society/Archive_1&oldid=1164978865"