Talk:Vegan studies/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Copyedit

I copyedited to show you some markup. The first sentence in this case forms the lede, and the explanation can become its own paragraph. valereee (talk) 17:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

concerns before submitting

Hey, pocoecofem let's talk about the various concerns.

First, you have a ton of sources. I'm going to suggest going through and removing every quote sourced to you unless there is absolutely NO other source for the assertion. That should be our default setting even if the primary author didn't have a COI. WP is as often as possible about what OTHER people are saying, not about the primary source.

Second, I agree completely with SV's assessment of the blockquotes. Way too long, make the article look dense and unreadable. Let's replace with paraphrasing, and as short as possible to communicate a particular point. A WP article doesn't have to tell everything about a subject. It just has to tell enough and point to more complete sources. In this case, with the COI issue, I think it's better to just get the basics in. Other editors will come along later and improve.

After that, let's reassess.valereee (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The fundamental issue is whether "vegan studies" exists as an academic field, as opposed to the topic of a book, The Vegan Studies Project (2015) by Laura Wright. What is the difference between an article about "vegan studies" and an article about her book? An article about "vegan studies" should be able to point to other people writing about it and teaching it. At the moment, the article refers to one course at the University of California Santa Barbara. Are there other courses called vegan studies? Are other academics writing about vegan studies (and calling it that)? That isn't clear from the text. Also, what is the difference between "history" and "theoretical traditions"? SarahSV ^(talk) 21:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will go back in and rework the quotes, get rid of all the quotes from my work, add scholars who are referencing vegan studies specifically in terms of the work that they are doing in the field (it is a field, not just the title of my book... my hope was that that would be clear in terms of how I explained its difference from other theoretical schools of thought, but I am clearly assuming a lot and need to reconsider). In terms of other courses, I don't know of any that are called "vegan studies" (as the one at UCSB is), but I do know of people doing vegan studies approaches with students, so I can include some of that material). And, as always, I so appreciate all the help.Pocoecofem (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging Josh Milburn in case he can advise. Josh, Draft:Vegan studies has been written by Pocoecofem, who has acknowledged that she is Laura Wright, the author of The Vegan Studies Project (2015), and that she has a COI. We've asked Laura to write the article in draft space, then request a review from one of the AfC regulars. In the meantime, we're advising her on how to produce a more disinterested account. I've listed some of the problems with the current draft here (basically too much self-reference). The first question to address is whether vegan studies has become a real thing yet. Is it a topic that is discussed and taught in universities (and called "vegan studies")? Is it regarded as an academic field? Any advice would be much appreciated. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Actually I saw a great quote that starts to answer that question, let me go find it...

Dario Martinelli and Ausra Berkmaniene said "The presence and legitimacy of 'vegan studies' within the academic world, especially since Wright cared to formalize the expression and define a paradigm, is something that should no longer require an explanation or a justification." here

So according to Martinelli and Bermanien, it exists. There was an earlier quote the other way: Fabio Parasecoli said he was "not sure if Wright's intention to open a whole new field of inquiry and scholarship will come to fruition..."here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs) 22:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, it does definitely exist. I quoted Parasecoli in my draft. :) I can also explain the ways that many of us in the field were teaching vegan studies approaches to texts -- literature, film, art, etc. -- before we had a name for what we were doing. Vegan studies approaches show up in courses in the fields of animal studies, food studies, etc. Hope this makes sense. Pocoecofem (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It makes sense in terms of this discussion, but it has to be proven in sources that are saying it. Someone somewhere (other than you) has to be saying "many of us were teaching vegan studies approaches to texts before we had a name for what we were doing." If you indent with colons -- one extra colon more than the person you're replying to -- it helps us all keep track of who is replying to whom. valereee (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thanks for the ping! @Pocoecofem: I'd be happy to help with the draft if I can - I have read your Vegan Studies Project, and I reflected a little on the field of "vegan studies" in a review of Critical Perspectives on Veganism. I actually think that the book could be helpful in dealing with the issues raised above about discussion of "vegan studies" beyond The Vegan Studies Project: Joy and Tuider in the foreword, and Castricano and Simonsen in the introduction, both frame the book as a work of vegan studies. I echo that in the review, and reflect a little on what vegan studies might be about. Josh Milburn (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Josh, thank you, this is excellent. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:25, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I have added the three "papers" (i.e.: Foreword, introduction, book review) to a further reading section, so they're there if needed. @Pocoecofem: I think this draft could be improved if you think a little about what a lead section is for in a Wikipedia article. Basically, the lead section summarises the rest of the article, meaning that there should be nothing there not included in the rest of the article. It is unusual to include quotes in lead sections, and very unusual to include blockquotes. If you think that the blockquotes belong in the article, I recommend moving them further down. You could also have a think about including a section specifically addressing what vegan studies is, as this is a lot of what the lead is doing at the moment. You could call it "Characteristics"; this is what the Wikipedia article on cultural studies does, for example. This can then be summarised in the lead, but that's no different from any other section. (To be clear: I definitely think that Wikipedia can support an article on vegan studies, and I definitely think this draft is moving in the right direction, but this is a tricky article to write!) Josh Milburn (talk) 06:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created a characteristics section, as well as expanding on the history section a little. This means that the lead will probably have to be expanded, as most of it has gone into the new section. Another thought: I think the "theoretical traditions" section requires some discussion of carnism. I know this only gets a passing mention in The Vegan Studies Project, but there's a lot of carnism-talk in Critical Perspectives on Veganism, to the extent that I suggest in my review that it is (or: the preface/introduction frame it as) central to vegan studies. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:13, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Josh, for all of this. I'll work more on the article today, once I get my head around all that I need to do to make it better. :) Pocoecofem (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Josh, thanks for adding what you did. It has helped a lot. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

citations needed/lead

Hey, SlimVirgin are you querying "interdisciplinary academic field" or academic field? And I assume you're querying the entire sentence "Scholars working in the field come from a variety of disciplines in the humanities, arts, and social sciences" rather than just the disciplines listed? valereee (talk) 23:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@Valereee: I'd like to see independent sources for the assertion that it's an academic field, and that there are scholars working in that field who come from a variety of disciplines. Where is it taught, for example? We list one course on the page; if there are others, we should list them too. Wright's book sought to introduce vegan studies as a field. The question is whether she succeeded or whether it's a work in progress. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: I've added the sourcing I've found for that. Most of the sources seem to be accepting it as a new field and calling it vegan studies, one (Martinelli and Berkmaniene) going so far as to say it should no longer be questioned. Two (Milburn and Parasecoli) are wondering whether it's certain. What do you think? valereee (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I saw your post here after I'd started the section below. I'm not completely opposed to it, but it seemed odd to open the history section with it, and the more sources we find that discuss it, the stranger it might seem to question it. Perhaps we could wait until we have a really solid draft in place, then we can expand it with this later. I do like Josh Milburn's point. Maybe a section could be added later on where it's being taught or considered. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No worries, my whole point in adding it was to show how many were discussing it. As long as we're all agreed it's a thing, I'm good! valereee (talk) 01:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I have a question about the lead: when I was writing it, I was using my definition of vegan studies, but I seem to have disappeared from the lead. I see other scholars in other leads on Wikipedia (posthumanism, for example). Is it not typical to include the person who established the field (or are we still debating that I established it?)? Just curious. Thanks. LWPocoecofem (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, pocoecofem in a case like this one, where a person is strongly connected with an article subject, it's a bit of a judgement call whether that person's name goes into the lead. Since this field is developing, Sarah is (by moving your first mention to the history section) arguing that there's not enough evidence yet to confirm that strong a connection. We work by consensus, so if one editor clearly is saying "not yet", other editors will try to consider her point of view. I think your name could have gone into the lead (and I'm registering that opinion with other editors simply by making this post.) You believe it belongs in the lead, and we're listening; even with a COI your arguments, reasoning, and sources count just as much as the next editor's. Josh hasn't weighed in, so he either agrees with Sarah that "not yet" or he's still thinking. However, whatever final result is submitted, remember that a WP article is also dynamic. Articles change constantly as new sources appear. As evidence builds that your name is becoming inextricably linked with the field itself, your name will eventually move into the lead because it will become clear to all editors that it belongs there. Patience. If that is what would be a good representation of what sources say and continue to say, it will happen. valereee (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC) ETA: whoops, sorry J Milburn SlimVirgin didn't mean to talk behind your backs. valereee (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have some quibbles at this point, which I hope you all will take in good faith and know that I am really excited about all the work that has gone into this article. I'll enumerate.

1. As I tried to articulate in the lead, vegan studies is a mode of scholarly theoretical inquiry informed by other such modes (feminism, ecocriticism, etc.). So perhaps it's worth saying that vegan studies is not the study of veganism per se or the study of the history of veganism.

2. The history section now contains a bit on the origin of the term "veganism." Is this necessary or could we just link to the article that already exists on that topic in WP?

3. Quinn and Westwood -- both of whom are friends (and I'm a bit of a mentor to Quinn) -- are getting lots of attention in the history. That's cool, of course, but I wrote extensively about the foundational historical studies (Spencer, Stuart, Adams, etc.) in the VSP, prior to the mere mention that they get in Quinn and Westwood. But what matters more, I think, is that I wrote about their work in the ways that it differed from what I was doing in establishing a vegan studies approach. (pp.1-6). Further, I also address and situate the work of Harper, McDonald, and Gaard in terms of the creation of vegan studies. (6-10).

4. Finally, I hate to keep picking on Renan (I was the person who included him initially in the article when it had a "pedagogies" section (I was modeling my initial draft on women's studies....I think...or some other article that had such a section). But what he's doing is not vegan studies, not in the way that the lead defines it. He's named a course vegan studies, which seems more coincidental to me than perhaps intentional (as I had initially assumed). The analogy that I keep making in my head is that it's like me offering a course called "women's studies" in which we read books about famous women as opposed to engaging theoretically with the nature of institutionalized sexism, etc. I hope that makes sense. If it were solely up to me (which I realize it isn't), he'd be included in a footnote.

5. There's a "citation needed" in the final paragraph. I had said that I'm making those claims in the intro to the new book, but I engage much more fully with what I'm calling the "three-pronged" field of animal studies on pp. 11-14 of the VSP, so if someone wants to add that citation, I'd be appreciative.

Finally, I am a literature scholar and I'm well aware that the author dies the minute one begins to read her/his text. That is to say, I can't control this narrative because I have loosed it upon the world (I'm clearly holding on tight, though). Still, I very much want to make sure that this article doesn't get too far afield from the intention behind my establishment of vegan studies. Thanks, all. LWPocoecofem (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved from draft

Blockquote

Moving this here for now because it's from an unpublished work.

Wright worked to show how vegan studies and vegan theory provide a new lens for ecocritical textual analysis, noting that:

[F]or vegan studies scholars, for animal studies to matter, the work that is done in its name necessarily has to be in the service of animals— and the work of feminist animal studies scholars (and more specifically ecofeminist animal studies scholars)—is work that actively asks the question, as Greta Gaard does, “has the growth of animal studies been good for animals?”. A vegan studies approach is theoretical, but it engages a lived politics of listening, care, emotion, and the empathetic imagination ... and this reality is what distinguishes a specifically vegan studies mode of inquiry from animal studies more generally. Further, if vegan studies is about listening (rather than speaking for), then we must be willing to listen to perspectives that may challenge our conceptions of “theory” in favor of work that is more activist, potentially experimental, and less bounded by the strictures of academic writing. is is not to say that vegan studies should be anti-theory, but that it should be theoretically di erent: informed by theory, driven by theoretical inquiry, but also fully engaged in activist praxis, dedicated to establishing a conversation that crosses boundaries and expands both knowledge and social engagement beyond the confines of the academy—and to my mind, this difference is what makes vegan studies so exciting.

SarahSV ^(talk) 23:52, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

This passage can be read in the Barnes&Noble excerpt, so I think it's probably citable even prior to publication. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. valereee (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I've restored it. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:51, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

From the history section

Valereee, I'm moving your addition to the history section here for now. I don't think we should use the "some ... other" construction, and I'm not sure it's needed now that Laura has added more sources. Do you still feel we should include it? Pocoecofem (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Some reviewers and academics accepted the identification of a new field of study, calling the book a "foundational work" and "the foundational text for the nascent field" of vegan studies. Dario Martinelli and Ausra Berkmaniene said "The presence and legitimacy of 'vegan studies' within the academic world, especially since Wright cared to formalize the expression and define a paradigm, is something that should no longer require an explanation or a justification." Castricano and Simonsen called it "the first vegan studies monograph to be published by a university press." Other academics were less sure that a new field had been created. Josh Milburn said he would if offered the opportunity teach a vegan studies course, but that he remained "unsure whether there truly is a literature sufficiently unified to be labelled a new discipline" but suspects the discipline will emerge. Fabio Parasecoli said he was "not sure if Wright's intention to open a whole new field of inquiry and scholarship will come to fruition, but she definitely offers many arguments that deserve attention and reflection."

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Zero opinion! I added it just to provide the sourcing. valereee (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with removing it, I guess.Pocoecofem (talk) 13:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

References

I've added the in-use tag to convert the long references to short refs. If anyone disagrees with this, please ping me to stop, and if you revert once I've finished, I won't mind, so please do if it's not wanted. I'm doing it to make the text easier to edit without the long refs in it. It may also be easier with short refs to see which ref supports which point. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I've used <ref>{{harvp|Smith|2018|p=1}}; {{harvp|Jones|2018|p=2}}.</ref> for bundled refs, and {sfnp|Smith|2018|p=1}} for single. I use harvp for bundling because bundling refs with sfn is very fiddly. They produce the same thing in read mode; if anyone wants consistency in edit mode too, I don't mind converting sfn to harvp, so give me a shout. Or feel free to revert the whole thing if you'd prefer not to use short refs. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Whoops, did I screw that up? Sorry! Not familiar with how to do that! If it's easier for others, totally happy with it, but if I just made more work for others I apologize! I'll try to figure it out. valereee (talk) 11:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Valereee, just add refs in whatever format you're comfortable with, and I'll convert them so long as no one minds. SarahSV ^(talk) 00:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Sarah, if a source is listed in 'Works cited' but I don't recognize a reference to it in 'References', does that mean it hasn't been used in the article yet? I've been trying to go through and see what's been sourced to whom, but I'm not very good with this method. Tips gratefully accepted lol valereee (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: everything in "Works cited" should be used in the article as a reference. If there's something you want to use at a later date, you could add it to FR, then move it into Works cited when you're ready to use it.

Because we're using citation templates, if you add importScript('User:Ucucha/HarvErrors.js'); to Special:MyPage/common.js, you'll see error messages that will tell you if there's a short ref without a corresponding long ref, and conversely will highlight if something is listed in Works cited (with ref=harv) without being used. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the script! I installed and it seem to be working! valereee (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Status

I think we're close to the point where the draft could be submitted. In my recent edits, I restored some of Laura's writing and structure, which I had changed but her version was better. She has now supplied sources for the lead. The only one I'm concerned about is Harper 2009, which predates the naming of vegan studies, so I assume the argument is that it doesn't predate the field's existence.

Laura, would you mind checking that the current version makes sense, particularly in terms of structure and flow? Is anything out of order or missing, in your view? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Done.

I think there are a few claims that still require citations. I also note that the following sentence - "Finally, posthumanism's challenge to the concept of human as distinct from our technology and the other species that make up our biome may work to challenge the Cartesian dualism of animal and human that underscores both critical animal studies and animal-human studies, but its assertion that we are also imbricated with and posthuman because of the animals that we eat,[ref removed] effectively erases the animal from ethical consideration." - is going to be opaque to many readers. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Changed.

Also, I think we could do with more citations, here, and I think we need to be clear in-text whose arguments they are. I don't think they should be presented in Wikipedia's "neutral" voice. Whose claim is this? The analysis of the three "areas" of animal studies needs to be attributed to someone. Who splits up animal studies in this way? Who criticises these areas of animal studies in this way? Josh Milburn (talk) 10:15, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

And on that note: The citations should be to people making the criticism, not to people making the putative mistake. Wikipedia isn't the place to publish criticism - it's the place to report criticism offered elsewhere. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Citations added.

To sum up remaining concerns:

• I've added that vegan studes is an "emerging" field. One of the sources (Almiron, Cole & Freeman 2018) refers to the "assertion of an emerging multidisciplinary space of 'vegan studies'" (my emphasis).
• I'm not keen on this sentence: "Vegan studies is related to but divergent from animal studies, in that vegan studies focuses on the role veganism plays in the creation, interpretation, and dissemination of texts that engage with sociopolitical forces that shape ideas about animals and diet." Can it be made clearer?
• The history section says that the term vegan studies was introduced by Laura Wright. Later the same section says that Renan Larue began teaching a "vegan studies" course at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the fall of 2015, and a search shows that someone registered his website veganstudies.org on 1 February 2015. According to Amazon, Wright's book was published in October 2015. So the first sentence of the history section may need to be rewritten.
• Re: the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section: "the term vegan studies 'highlights the oppositional role played by veganism towards ideologies that legitimate oppression and therefore also the ways in which veganism itself may be marginalized, misrepresented or distorted in and by the media'." How does the term vegan studies do all those things?
• We need a source for "The field is concerned with reading texts ..."
• Re: "animal studies, which is in itself multifaceted, consisting of critical animal studies, human–animal studies, and posthumanism". Per Josh, can we add other sources who divide animal studies into critical animal studies, human–animal studies, and posthumanism?
• Re: "troubling dismissal". I'd like to unpack this, but it's in Wright 2019, which hasn't been published. I think we ought not to use unpublished works, per WP:V. An excerpt is available on the Barnes & Noble site, so maybe it's okay to use that text, but we ought not to use anything else.
• I'm not keen on the two long blockquotes from Wright. I'd like to remove at least one.
• Per Josh, we need sources for "vegan scholars have explored how veganism fits into its purview, given that, for them, veganism as theory and identity category are inseparable."
• The last paragraph is written in Wikipedia's voice, so that needs to be fixed.
• Who other than McCance 2013 argues that CAS maintains the human/nonhuman binary?
• Per Josh, we need to fix "Furthermore, despite giving rise to the animal protection movement, human-animal studies examines ..." As written it isn't correct.
• This sentence should be rewritten: "Finally, posthumanism's challenge to the concept of human as distinct from our technology and the other species that make up our biome may work to challenge the Cartesian dualism of animal and human that underscores both critical animal studies and animal-human studies, but its assertion that we are also imbricated with and posthuman because of the animals that we eat,[30] effectively erases the animal from ethical consideration."

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm not keen on this sentence: "Vegan studies is related to but divergent from animal studies, in that vegan studies focuses on the role veganism plays in the creation, interpretation, and dissemination of texts that engage with sociopolitical forces that shape ideas about animals and diet." Can it be made clearer?

Done.

• The history section says that the term vegan studies was introduced by Laura Wright. Later the same section says that Renan Larue began teaching a "vegan studies" course at the University of California, Santa Barbara, in the fall of 2015, and a search shows that someone registered his website veganstudies.org on 1 February 2015. According to Amazon, Wright's book was published in October 2015. So the first sentence of the history section may need to be rewritten.

I'm not sure how to address this one, as I have been working with and using the term "vegan studies" since 2012 or so.

I'm finding Larue started teaching the course winter 2016 here according to UCSB. The domain timing is definitely weird, leaves me wondering why someone who hasn't published anything about "vegan studies" would register that domain name when someone else's book about it is just about to come out :D valereee (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

The most likely conclusion is that several people working in this area arrived at similar ideas at the same time (and two of them used the same term), which is common in academia. These ideas don't exist in a vacuum. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I can agree that ideas are sometimes in the ether, but the fact LaRue is using the term doesn't really mean much if no one is talking about him using the term.valereee (talk) 13:05, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Re: the first sentence of the "Characteristics" section: "the term vegan studies 'highlights the oppositional role played by veganism towards ideologies that legitimate oppression and therefore also the ways in which veganism itself may be marginalized, misrepresented or distorted in and by the media'." How does the term vegan studies do all those things?

Fixed it.

• We need a source for "The field is concerned with reading texts ..."

Added.

• Re: "animal studies, which is in itself multifaceted, consisting of critical animal studies, human–animal studies, and posthumanism". Per Josh, can we add other sources who divide animal studies into critical animal studies, human–animal studies, and posthumanism?

Done.

• Re: "troubling dismissal". I'd like to unpack this, but it's in Wright 2019, which hasn't been published. I think we ought not to use unpublished works, per WP:V. An excerpt is available on the Barnes & Noble site, so maybe it's okay to use that text, but we ought not to use anything else.

For what it's worth, the book will be out next month (maybe sooner). :)

• I'm not keen on the two long blockquotes from Wright. I'd like to remove at least one.

Done.

• Per Josh, we need sources for "vegan scholars have explored how veganism fits into its purview, given that, for them, veganism as theory and identity category are inseparable."

Added sources.

• The last paragraph is written in Wikipedia's voice, so that needs to be fixed.

I'm not sure how to do that. Help?

• Who other than McCance 2013 argues that CAS maintains the human/nonhuman binary?

Added another one (you mean HAS, correct? Not CAS?). Given that the field is called Human-Animal Studies, it necessarily maintains that divide.

• Per Josh, we need to fix "Furthermore, despite giving rise to the animal protection movement, human-animal studies examines ..." As written it isn't correct.

Fixed it.

• This sentence should be rewritten: "Finally, posthumanism's challenge to the concept of human as distinct from our technology and the other species that make up our biome may work to challenge the Cartesian dualism of animal and human that underscores both critical animal studies and animal-human studies, but its assertion that we are also imbricated with and posthuman because of the animals that we eat,[30] effectively erases the animal from ethical consideration."

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Rewrote.

Thanks for all of this, Sarah and Josh. I will do my best to address these concerns and to clarify over the next few days (or should others make the corrections?). In the meantime, best wishes for the new year. I'm ready for this one to be over. :)Pocoecofem (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

A couple of other points: Harper's work does predate vegan studies, but Quinn and Westwood count her as someone doing work that shaped the field prior to its having a name. With regard to Renan's course, I *think* that he offered it for the first time in 2016. But regardless, my book was in the works -- and had a title -- back in 2012. I had been blogging about it for years prior to its publication, so I'm hoping the fact that he called his course "vegan studies" prior to the book's publication isn't an issue. Anyway, thanks again. I can't tell you how much your help and guidance mean to me. Pocoecofem (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Laura, there's no rush for any of this, so don't feel you have to fix it in the next few days. Feel free to fix the issues directly in the draft. Bear in mind that this is an encyclopaedia article that must adhere to a neutral point of view and that everything in it must comply with our verifiability policy. The writing should be dry and disinterested, and should simply report what reliable sources say, rather than advancing a position. Try to write about it as though you don't care one way or the other.

Are any of your pre-publication blog posts about vegan studies still online? SarahSV ^(talk) 18:41, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Got interested so went looking: first blog post Jan '11 valereee (talk) 14:34, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Many of my posts moved over to Medium, so they aren't all there. I had a contract for the book with U of Georgia P in 2012. :)

Thanks again for all of this. I've worked to address everything that you all have raised. Happy new year! Pocoecofem (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Laura, the problem with your text is that you're engaging in your work on the draft page (what we call "original syn"), rather than offering a disinterested account of what sources say about "vegan studies". The draft should be an encyclopaedia entry, a tertiary source, so we need "A said X about vegan studies (source); B said Y about vegan studies (source); C said Z about vegan studies (source)". Maybe we can flesh it out later with arguments from older texts (if those texts are referenced by recent sources discussing "vegan studies"), but for now we're trying to get a clear summary in place that answers the question: "what is 'vegan studies', according to sources who use that term"?

Related to that, what distinction, if any, do the sources draw between vegan studies and vegan theory? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's really a distinction between studies/theory. Quinn and Westwood use 'theory' in their later book. I'll do some digging. Re the fact that I'm the person writing about me, maybe I should just leave it alone at this point. I desperately want VS to have a page on Wikipedia, but it seems that perhaps my attempt to create one is causing more trouble than I intended, given that I'm not a disinterested party. Thanks, as always, for all the help. Pocoecofem (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Two other points: Jodey Castricano maintains a "Vegan Studies" page on FB, which started in 2016: https://www.facebook.com/pg/VeganStudiesCFP/about/?ref=page_internal. Secondarily, I communicated with Renan in February of last year. Pocoecofem (talk) 15:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually looks like the Vegan Studies page on FB was launched Feb 8 2015. valereee (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I know that the page was established in response to a CFP for the 2016 Critical Perspectives on Veganism book that Jody co-edited. Pocoecofem (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, again. I've made a couple more edits, which I hope are helpful.

I'm not sure how to address this issue, but I was talking about vegan studies on FB in 2014 (here's a post where I put the title of the book out there for discussion: https://www.facebook.com/laura.wright.5201/posts/10100353015760822), which is well before Renan started his page. Also the manuscript for my book had gone out to readers in 2013 for blind review, so the work was in circulation that early (I also know who the reviewers are, as they told me after the review process: Greta Gaard and Kathryn Kirkpatrick). Anyway, I don't know if any of this helps me make the case that I came up with the term, not Renan. I don't want to seem overly concerned about that issue, but I am. I've written extensively about the importance of making sure that women get credit where credit is due (here's a post I wrote for Inside HigherEd about that issue: https://www.facebook.com/laura.wright.5201/posts/10100353015760822). Anyway, I have tons of correspondence with various people about vegan studies well ahead of 2015, if any of that material would be useful. And, again, thanks for all that you are all doing. I sincerely hope that I'm not being a pest; please tell me if I am. Pocoecofem (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

You aren't being a pest. You're doing exactly what you should be doing -- offering comment here. Much of this timeline stuff is just for our own understanding of developments. We can't use it to determine who is "responsible" for the term; that's synthesis -- combining reliably sourced material to come up with a new statement that isn't suggested by the sources. (That's my objection to the part of the history section that says'The term vegan studies, to refer to the study of veganism within the humanities, came into use in February 2015 when the French scholar Renan Larue [fr], author of Le végétarisme et ses ennemis: Vingt-cinq siècles de débats (2015), set up veganstudies.org'.) But the timeline here on the talk page can help us arrange our thoughts, so unofficial stuff like when your book went to readers can go into it. valereee (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have the contract for the book, which was signed 2/24/14. My take is that Larue isn't doing vegan studies; he's disseminating vegan information -- which is great. But it's not doing the work of the scholar. As far as I can tell, he's never published in the field. Anyway, I hope this post is indented the way that it should be; I seem to be having trouble with all sorts of things that shouldn't cause me trouble. Perks of being middle-aged, I suppose. :) Best, LauraPocoecofem (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC

One last thing with regard to pedagogy (and this might be irrelevant): I'm doing a vegan studies pre-conference workshop at the biennial Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment this summer. Part of the workshop will be about teaching and creating courses that engage with vegan studies. Here's the announcement, if it's of interest or of use. I thought of it because I just had someone contact me about signing up for it. I think it will really fun. Click on "workshops" and scroll to mine: https://www.asle.org/conference/biennial-conference/schedule-and-events/. LWPocoecofem (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

"t"

I'm guessing true in logic, but T_(disambiguation) just lists logic as a one of the possibles, and Logic doesn't make it easy to find valereee (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it's "fit" - just a typo! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

hahahahaha valereee (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Date format

Does anyone mind if I change the date format to day-month-year? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No objection valereee (talk) 12:38, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Citation confusion

Does anyone have a copy of Critical Perspectives on Veganism? There seems to be confusion between these citations:

• Castricano, Jodey; Simonsen, Rasmus R. (2016). "Introduction: Food for Thought". In Castricano, Jodey; Simonsen, Rasmus R. (eds.). Critical Perspectives on Veganism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. v–xv. ISBN 978-3-319-33418-9.
• Joy, Melanie; Tuider, Jens (2016). "Foreword". In Castricano, Jodey; Simonsen, Rasmus R. (eds.). Critical Perspectives on Veganism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. v–xv. ISBN 978-3-319-33418-9.

I can only see part of the book. The foreword appears to start as written by Castricano and Simonsen, but ends with Joy and Tuider, both given as pp. v–xv. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy. The Foreword (pp. v-xv) is entirely by Joy/Tuider. The introduction (starting on p. 1, after 30 pages of front matter) is pp. 1-11. I got the page numbers wrong on the introduction - must have been a copy-paste error. I'll fix that now. Josh Milburn (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Josh, thanks for clarifying. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

History

This doesn't work for me: The term vegan studies, to refer to the study of veganism within the humanities, came into use in February 2015 when the French scholar Renan Larue [fr], author of Le végétarisme et ses ennemis: Vingt-cinq siècles de débats (2014), set up veganstudies.org, and later that year developed a vegan studies course at the University of California, Santa Barbara, which he began teaching in 2016.[9]

This is supported only by setting up a domain name. Anyone can set up a domain name for a new concept they've heard about in an upcoming book. The fact the domain registration slightly predates the book publication doesn't mean the domain name setup had anything to do with the term coming into use. (It actually could be argued the opposite -- that the term coming into use, and the course being named, is a result of the forthcoming book, but that would equally be an unsupported assertion.) Is anyone out there writing that LaRue had anything to do with the term coming into use? Because I'm not finding anything at all, even in French, that links him with the term other than the course at UCSB. valereee (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Re: sources on Larue, there are a few news sources in the article, including from Le Monde and Slate.fr. Several things happened at around the same time, as you'd expect. I'm not suggesting adding all this to the article; just noting it as evidence that it was, as someone wrote, a "field of research whose time ha[d] come":

• 1 December 2014: Quinn and Westwood held a workshop at York to discuss "the fast developing field of vegan theory".
• 14 January 2015: Larue's book, Le végétarisme et ses ennemis, was published by Presses Universitaires de France.
• 1 February 2015: Larue registered veganstudies.org.
• 8 February 2015: Castricano/Simonsen set up a vegan studies Facebook page.
• 14 February 2015: There was a call for papers by Castricano and Simonsen.
• 5 March 2015: Castricano/Simonsen set up a vegan studies Twitter account.
• 20 March 2015: Wright blogged about having received the proof of her book cover for The Vegan Studies Project.
• Summer 2015: Larue suggested a vegan studies course to UC Santa Barbara.
• 1 October 2015: Wright's The Vegan Studies Project was published by University of Georgia Press.
• 7 January 2016: Larue held the first class of his UCSB vegan studies course.
• 19 April 2016: The Santa Barbara News-Press published the first news article about "vegan studies".
• 31 May 2016: Quinn and Westwood held a conference at Oxford, Towards a Vegan Theory.
• 27 September 2016: Castricano and Simonsen's ​​Critical Perspectives on Veganism​​​ was published by Palgrave Macmillan.​

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

This feels to me like original research. What other academics are saying is what's important, not the timeline we're putting together, surely? valereee (talk) 02:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

adding to timeline valereee (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• 9 January 2011: Wright starts blogging about a book she's working on, working title The Vegan Body Project
• 2013 Wright's book goes to readers for review
• 2013 Eva Giraud uses the term in an article in the Journal of Existential and Phenomenological Theory and Culture
• early 2014: Jason Edwards organizes a panel at York on the "niche field of vegan theory." Quinn and Westwood speak. (not sure if this is the same as below; it's from Thinking Veganism in Literature and Culture)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valereee (talk • contribs)

(edit conflict) I agree that this feels like it's veering towards OR; I don't think, for example, that starting a Facebook group or registering a domain name is the sort of thing we should be including unless it's discussed in the secondary literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to sneakily insert things into SV's post, was just trying to keep it chronological. My bad. valereee (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I just typed a huge amount and then lost all of it. Incredibly frustrating! The gist: I agree that the FB group and domain name information seems pretty irrelevant. I did note that I mentioned the Vegan Studies Project on FB for the first time in 2014, simply because I was trying to find my first public reference to it. I guess my main concern at this point is that I created the framework and named a field that other scholars have engaged with, recognized, and utilized. I was doing vegan studies on my blog way back in 2011 (by the way, there's now another blog called "The Vegan Body Project." It's like I don't exist sometimes...), and I was the first person to situate the work of vegan scholars in a vegan studies paradigm. In terms of Edwards, Quinn, and Westwood, they contacted me to keynote their conference because, as Quinn told me at the time, I had written the foundational text for what they were doing (she was sort of deflated when she found the book, as she had hoped to be the first person to write such a text. She and Westwood were PhD candidates at the time). I guess I'm just wanting to make as strong a case as possible for my scholarly claim to the creation of this field. Renan's class looks really cool, but it's disseminating vegan studies, not creating theoretical work within it.

Also, I can't remember if Josh mentioned Melanie Joy and Jens Tuider's foreword to Critical Perspectives on Veganism, but they discuss vegan studies on pp. xiv-xv ahead of the mention that I get on p. 3 of the introduction. I don't own that book; Palgrave books are extremely expensive, which keeps them from being as widely accessible as I would like for them to be, particularly given the cool things that scholars are doing in books published by Palgrave. I have Quinn and Westwood's, as, at their request, I wrote the lead essay for it. Best, LWPocoecofem (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure we can say Giraud ‘discussed the role of vegan studies’ – the entirety of her use of the term 'vegan studies' in a 33-page paper is this: “This framing of veganism as totalising is also connected with a wider suspicion of deep ecology, with which animal rights praxis frequently associated (an association that masks the more complex evolution of vegan studies within ecological critique).” Maybe ‘used the term’ ?

I think we should remove the veganstudies.org mention as irrelevant for WP, and whether he was developing the course in 2015 as also irrelevant for WP. Of course he developed it before he taught it, or as someone who has spent hundreds of thousands on tuition I certainly hope so. What’s relevant is that he started teaching it. I’d propose this:

In January 2016 the French scholar Renan Larue, author of Le végétarisme et ses ennemis: Vingt-cinq siècles de débats (2015), began teaching a vegan studies course at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reportedly the first such course in the United States, which explored animal ethics, pathocentrism, Melanie Joy's concept of carnism, Peter Singer's utilitarianism, Tom Regan's and Gary Francione's deontological approach, Marti Kheel's ecofeminism, and Carol J. Adams's ethics of care. valereee (talk) 13:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

French sources

Okay, so I think I've read all the French sources.

Blanchard's mention of Larue is one of a list of acknowledgements for reading/comments she received on a paper. Burnouf in Le Monde is an interview panel of four which included Larue and calls him the 'creator of vegan studies at UC.' Cugnier in French Morning (seems to be an online news service for francophones in the US?) says 'For the first time in the US, veganism issues have just been included in the program of a major university...an event to put to the credit of a Frenchman: Renan Larue.' Boulo in Slate I think (not sure I was actually reading the full article, but I think this is all I found) calls him 'dedicated to veganism' but that was about it?

The Cugnier/French Morning and the Le Monde article give him credit for first including/creating a course in vegan studies, but none of them are trying to assert he had anything to do with the term vegan studies or developing the theory. valereee (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)