Talk:Veganism/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions about Veganism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Definition of veganism in the lead

Talk:Veganism/Archive 10#Commodity status of animals

Also see United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database

I know that it has been discussed at length before but several editors, including me, have since expressed concern over the opening sentence of the lead:

'Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'.

According to WP:lead it should be an 'introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents' and 'should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view'.

I particularly object to the last phrase, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals', which not an accessible style and does not promote a NPOV. The words 'commodity status of animals' is specialist vegan rhetoric from vegan sources intended to refer to the ways that humans not only own animals but treat them in the same way as they would treat an inanimate commodity. There is no generally accepted view that this is the case. It is a piece of jargon, internal to vegan philosophy, encapsulating the vegan opinion of the worst aspects of the way that they think non-vegans treat animals. To a reader not familiar with vegan literature and philosphy it is either ambiguous or meaningless. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it looks good for a lede. But i'm glad for us to get back to discussing the lede, which was the original post to the NPOV noticeboard that brought me here. I think the bit about the commodity status of animals is in fact a generally accepted thing among the mainstream western societies (and most societies in the world), and that referring to it as such is acceptable. I think this could be supported by many good sources, and not only from vegan-aligned sources that might be seen as having an agenda or POV to push. Do you have some serious sources that say that animals do not occupy a commodity status in the mainstream western human society to which this lede refers, or that "the commodity status of animals" is not real, or is propaganda or POV pushing? SageRad (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not even know what it means in normal society. What exactly do you understand it to mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your contention that "commodity" is intended to have this implication is simply wrong. Ethical vegans object to animals having the legal status of property and being bought and sold. This is their actual position, not an emotive rhetorical device. Moreover you have never provided a source suggesting that "commodity" has the connotations you claim it does, whereas the term is applied to animals routinely without controversy, e.g. by the United Nations Commodity Trade Statistics Database and many other sources. You are correct that we have been through this several times. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

What implication?

I am sure that some ethical vegans may object to the fact that animals can be bought and sold but I am equally sure that this specific objection, that purely of legal ownership features very low on their list of concerns. I am even more sure that the animals themselves do not care at all. Even so, I have no objection to stating that fact in the appropriate section, if we can find a source for it.

The lead should contain a general description, in ordinary language, of the basic principles of veganism. The core principles that all, or at least most, vegans adhere to. Something more than just 'humans can have legal ownership of animals'.

Some examples of what I mean, taken from vegan societies' definitions and other quality sources include, 'Veganism is compassion in action', ' concern for people, animals, and the environment', 'without directly or indirectly harming or exploiting animals', and ' boycott cruel practices towards animals'. These all try to describe what veganism is all about, in language that is clear, simple, and unambiguous.

'Commodity status' requires our readers to guess a meaning between the extremes of, 'humans can have legal ownership of animals' to 'humans can do whatever they like to all animals with no regard whatever for the animal's feelings, welfare, or rights of any kind (on other words they can treat them just as they treat normal commodities like copper). This covers almost the whole range of possible human attitudes to animals and is therefore completely useless as a definition. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Even as your editing is being discussed on AN/I, you're doing it again:

I am sure that some ethical vegans may object to the fact that animals can be bought and sold but I am equally sure that this specific objection, that purely of legal ownership features very low on their list of concerns. I am even more sure that the animals themselves do not care at all.

This is an unacceptable waste of other people's time. Of course ethical vegans object to the property status of animals. It is not "very low" on their list of concerns; rather, it is central to them. Please do some reading or remove yourself from this page. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Really? You are trying to tell me that the main thing that ethical vegans care about is legal ownership? You think that they care more about this than cruelty or the killing of animals? You think that they care more about legal ownership that using an animal 'as an organic toy'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As I said, do the reading and stop wasting other people's time. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Once again you resort to incivility. Let me ask you a simple question. Do you take 'commodity status' in the lead to mean simply 'subject to legal ownership'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It has a very ordinary meaning, so look it up. Start with footnote 9 and the previous discussion, which included the United Nations. Do the reading. No more asking questions that other people can answer because they have done it.

You have to read the relevant literature if you want to be involved in creating content on Wikipedia. There are no shortcuts. If you refuse to read and keep expecting other people to read for you, as though we are your slaves, then it starts to look like trolling. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not expect you to read for me but unless you have published your opinion somewhere accessible online reading will not help me find out the answer to my question. You have taken 5 lines to not answer my question which was quite simple and could have been answered quite simply. I ask again, do you take 'commodity status' in the lead to mean simply 'subject to legal ownership'?

It want your answer because I am having a discussion with you. It is better if we both understand what we mean when we use certain words. If you, for some reason, decline to answer my simple question then perhaps you could answer this question, which is not to be found in any literature. Do you think that our readers will take 'commodity status' in the lead to mean simply 'subject to legal ownership'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: I can't answer for SV, but a dictionary definition is "an article of trade or commerce." You have not substantiated your belief that the word means something else. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, my belief is that I do not know what the phrase means and nobody else here seems to know either. I know perfectly well what a commodity is but the phrase that you are fighting so hard to keep is 'commodity status'. What do you expect our readers to undestand by that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Rosemary-Claire Collard, Kathryn Gillespie, "Introduction," in Kathryn Gillespie, Rosemary-Claire Collard (eds.), Critical Animal Geographies, Routledge, 2015, p. 2 (emphasis added):

Live animal auctions in the United States are places where the geographical dimensions of power and hierarchy between humans and other animals can be seen in stark detail. Nonhuman animals are subjected to various modes of bodily control in the space of the auction yard where they are exchanged as commodities and used in the production of new commodities. ... Farmed animals, like the cow with barcode #743, are sold and bought at auction to be used as commodity producers (e.g. for breeding, milk production, semen production) and as commodities themselves (e.g. to be slaughtered for 'meat').

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be spending a lot of effort not to answer a very simple and important question. What do you think that our readers will take 'commodity status' in the lead to mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Here. I don't mind typing up some quotes for you, because I just spent a semester working my way through this literature. Most of this I've already listed for you above, in #Academic sources and "Property status", which please read through.

Gary Francione probably puts this point most clearly. In his influential Animals—Property or Persons?, he writes

The property status of animals renders meaningless any balancing that is supposedly required under the humane treatment principle or animal welfare laws, because what we really balance are the interests of property owners against the interests of their animal property....We are allowed to impose any suffering required to use our animal propertry for a particular purpose even if that purpose is our mere amusement or pleasure. As long as we use our animal property to generate an economic benefit, there is no effective limit on our use or treatment of animals.

Pre-eminent animal legal scholar David Favre writes, in Equitable Self-Ownership for Animals, proposes a modification of animals' current property status (basically making them self-owning property with legal guardians), because

Many [in the animal rights movement] assume that the full legal implementation of their personal vegan [hilosophy is the immediate and only goal of the legal change. And yet, such radical change in the short term is impossible. It would be more realistic to be incremental, to begin the journey of change by modifying, but not eliminating, the existing property status of animals.

Steven Wise, in The Legal Thinghood of Nonhuman Animals, writes

"Legal thinghood" describes an entity with no capacity for legal rights. Its interests, if they exist, are not required to be respected. Instead, the entity is treated as property about which legal persons have legal rights and duties.

and in Animal Thing to Animal Person--Thoughts on Time, Place, and Theories that

Every animal-rights lawyer knows that this barrier [between legal persons and legal things] must be breached.

Christine Korsgaard, in Kantian Ethics, Animals, and the Law,writes that

legal systems divide the world into persons and property, treating human beings as persons, and pretty much everything else, including 'non-human animals, as property.

and then argues that we need to reject this bifurcation in order to treat animals morally. She and several others cite Wolfson and Sullivan's Foxes in the Henhouse, which shows clearly how completely welfare protections are removed from animals being used as property. That paper demonstrates how this issue underlies what vegans worry about.

So yes, the philosophies of veganism believe that the property status of animals is the basic and paradigmatic issue they oppose. These quotes also show, though, that you're right to find "commodity" odd; the standard vocabulary is property status, not "commodity status", and per WP:WEIGHT we should make that tweak. FourViolas (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So you would be happy to have in the lead, '...and an associated philosophy that rejects the treatment of animals as property'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although I think "rejects the existing property status of animals" would be a bit more exact. FourViolas (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled as to why we have to use 'property' as an adjective. What does 'property status' say that 'treatment of animals as property' does not? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Beause they are not simply treated as property; they are property. They have property status. FV, Martin is not correct that commodity is not used. Of course it is; it's an ordinary word and pretending otherwise just panders to this determined failure to learn. This affects people on other pages too, so encouraging it here has consequences elsewhere. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, I think you're right, that would be fine for the lead sentence; it's clearer. The complication is that some people, like Favre, think there's a way of changing the concept of "property" such that it would be okay to treat animals as a special, privileged kind of "property", and therefore only object to the existing status of animals as property. But for a definition of veganism, I don't think we need to worry about that fine distinction. SV, you're completely right that some authors and organizations use "commodity", but I think my quotes (not cherrypicked; just look at the title of Francione's paper) show that the standard language is "property". Also, the quotes show that "treated as property" is a standard construction among vegan philosophers. FourViolas (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I would object to "treated as property," because it begins to smack of a welfare issue and misses the point. The point is the objection to commodity/property status. You could treat an animal like a princess; ethical vegans will applaud the treatment but still object to the property status. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's worth remembering that not all ethical vegans are abolitionists, btw. FourViolas (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

That (one set of ideas about how to achieve change) is not directly related to this issue. Returning to the sentence at issue, I'd be amazed if you could find an ethical vegan who did not object to the commodity status of animals. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay. When these sources say "treated", they mean in the sense of "classified", so "status" would make that clear. Can everyone live with an associated philosophy that rejects the existing property status of animals, then? FourViolas (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Commodity/property status means the same thing here, and that's why that sentence structure was chosen. I would object to "existing" because it has no function. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@FourViolas: I have great respect for the large amount of effort you've put into this. However, your research pretty starkly reveals the baselessness of the objections which gave birth to this months-old discussion. We can quibble about whether the weight of sources use "commodity" or "property", but this ignores the bigger point that there is no reason for the discussion in the first place. Other editors cannot be expected to match the diligence you invest in these distractions.

Inasmuch as there is any substance in this, I think "commodity" is probably a better word, in light of views such as those of Favre - he would allow animals to have an upgraded sort of property status, but would not allow them to be articles of trade. Some authors use the terms interchangeably, as SV indicates above, and this one criticizes this conflation of terms and argues that "commodity" is the appropriate word.

Of course, to most readers it won't make the slightest bit of difference - they will not intuit all the academic nuance behind these words. And we shouldn't obscure the fact that what we're currently talking about has essentially nothing to do with Martin's concerns, such as they were. There are many words in this article, and we cannot discuss all of them in this way. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that commodity status is more accurate. We are arguably dumbing it down if we change it to property status, and dumbing it down to the point of inaccuracy if we change it to treatment as property.

But Sammy's larger point matters: the sentence is clear as written, as was the Lambe sentence. These discussions are pointless. And FV, we don't exist in a vacuum. By encouraging this, you're causing it to happen elsewhere, because Martin will continue thinking it's okay. So other people will keep on having to deal with it, or take articles off their watchlists because he has arrived. Article develop will cease, readers are affected, and so on. These apparently isolated things have consequences. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:03, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's leave conduct discussions to the ANI thread; I happen to disagree that these issues are without merit. But we can sum up to try to stave off future ad nauseum discussions:

The boxed encyclopedia sources in the "academic sources" section above establish that the first sentence should be Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated [vegan philosophy].
To decide how to describe [vegan philosophy], we should consult the consensus of vegan philosophers.
The boxed sources just above show that most such high-profile philosophers reject animals' status as property (=legal nonpersons under the control of legal persons). The sources in the footnote [1] show that some more specifically object to animals' status as commodities (=property which can be bought and sold), and one RS (good find, Sammy!) argues that some who say the former really mean the latter. In any case they all agree on the latter. Therefore [vegan philosophy] can be described as ...an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.

I can endorse this argument. I hope it is an accurate summary of the consensus. FourViolas (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quod erat demonstrandum. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem

I think it would be better to use a definition of veganism based on a definition given by a reliable source rather than editors here trying to come up with their own, however I can accept point 1.

I accept point 2, although I would point out that many of the sources do not refer specifically to veganism and we do have several quality sources that do specifically give a clear definition of veganism. For some reason these have been ignored

The problem is that to an average non-specialist reader 'commodity status' or 'commodity status' can mean anything from literally just the fact than an animal can be legally owned to the idea that humans can do whatever they like to animals without any regard to the animal's feelings, health, or welfare. These are two fundamentally different things. (If you do not understand what I mean by that and why I say it please ask and I will be happy to explain).

From my personal reading of the extracts of the sources that FourViolas kindly displayed, the meaning used by animal rights philosophers is somewhere in the middle of this range but not very clearly defined. Even those arguing against me here cannot come to complete agreement on what they are saying. The terms 'commodity/property status' are clearly being used with some degree of specialist/jargon meaning.

The real problem, and my main objection to your wording, is that average non-specialist reader will have absolutely no idea what 'commodity status' means. It can mean anything from 'humans can have legal ownership of animals' to 'humans can treat animals any way that they like'; vastly different extremes. You can try and argue that animal rights philosophers know what they mean but that is of no importance. It will tell our readers, the whole reason that the WP project exists, absolutely nothing.

Just is case you think I am just being awkward you might like to re-read the comment made by Betty Logan. She said, 'In truth I don't really know what "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" actually means. Would that preclude going out and buying a dog, for example?'. I do not know much about Betty's background but I do know that she has long been a respected voice on various vegetarian and vegan articles. If she cannot understand our principle definition of veganism how useful can it be to the general public?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Hogbin (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Commodity status of animals means the fact that animals can legally be owned and traded. That's not jargon. I would ask if you want the article to have a note clarifying it, but there already is one. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That is your interpretation. How do you expect our readers to know that? I do not know what it means. Betty did not. We need to write in plain English.

How do you justify your personal interpretation in the light of this statement in one of the sources, 'We are allowed to impose any suffering required to use our animal propertry for a particular purpose even if that purpose is our mere amusement or pleasure'? That means much more than just legal ownership. What do you suppose this means, ' Its interests, if they exist, are not required to be respected'? Surely not just legal ownership! Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that people draw conclusions from or make arguments about X does not imply that X does not mean X. Perhaps you are objecting to the fact that vegans have reasons for challenging the commodity status of animals. They obviously do - but that doesn't change what the words mean. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:43, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you really asserting that, 'an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals' means that vegans just object to the legal ownership of animals'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Objecting to the way animals are allowed to be bought and sold appears to be common to all vegan philosophies, while being absent from any non-vegan philosophies about animals. It's therefore necessary and sufficient to describe vegan philosophy. That's all we need from a definition. FourViolas (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

It is necessary only for some ethical vegans, not all vegans share this philosophy, however, is is certainly not sufficient.

With that definition it would be wrong for a person to rescue a dog from a life of mistreatment and then treat it with love, care, and consideration for the rest of its live but it would be acceptable for a group of people on horseback with dogs to hunt and kill a wild animal. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that "commodification" means not simply the reduction of living things to a property that can be bought and sold, but also a psychological shift in the mind of the people doing it, to viewing the living beings as objects to be used for their use-value without consideration of the feelings of the living thing. I think that is the meaning of commodification in this context. It includes, but goes beyond, the way living beings are bought and sold. In the case of slavery as in the U.S., the commodification there was that humans were bought and sold, but further than that, their treatment as objects that can perform work and other services to slave "owners" was a big part of the meaning of commodification. SageRad (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Necessary and sufficient is all we need from a definition, but elegant is what we want. SageRad (talk) 16:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

About elegance: I think the problem is that vegan philosophies are heterogeneous, with lots of disagreements about how we should treat animals and why, with mutually incompatible assumptions and vocabulary. Among the things they do agree on, most are insufficiently specific: for example, they all agree that cruelty to animals is morally wrong, but so do a lot of non-vegan Humane Society members. Rejecting the system which allows animals to be objects of commerce seems to be a pretty good empirical test for whether a particular philosophy will endorse a vegan lifestyle or not. I agree that it's not the most obvious-feeling definition, but it gets right to some core issues, and I don't see a good alternative. FourViolas (talk) 01:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

FourViolas, in the first sentence of the lead we do not need a 'pretty good empirical test for whether a particular philosophy will endorse a vegan lifestyle or not' from people with 'mutually incompatible assumptions and vocabulary' we need a clear definition from a reliable source. We can discuss the detail in the body of the article. If you want an alternative, how about expressing ourselves in plain English so that our readers can understand what we mean.

SageRad my understanding of what animal rights philosophers mean by 'commodity status' is quite close to yours but several peope here have been insisting that it refers just to legal ownership. The problem with putting it in the article is that there is no way for the readers to know what it is intended to mean. As I say above, it can mean anything between just legal ownership, and the right to do whatever you like to an animal, which covers pretty well the whole range of possibilities. We should state what we mean in plain English not animal rights jargon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your position. It is not just animal rights jargon, although the concept of commodification is kind of academic-speak. You and i understood the word beyond only the buying and selling, so that's a good start. At least two readers among several here understood it correctly. Perhaps we could hyperlink the word "commodification" to a relevant article that would help to expand the concept for anyone who chooses to click on it. SageRad (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it is the first sentence of the lead and there is no reason to make it intentionally ambiguous. I do understand the general meaning of commodification. As the link shows, with its generally accepted meaning it has little to do with animals. There is absolutely no reason at all not to say what we mean in plain and unambiguous language. There are plenty of examples of good, clear, comprehensive definitions from quality sources listed in sections above. Why not use one of them?

We could then, in the 'Ethical veganism' section say that, '(Some) ethical vegans object to (just) the fact that humans can own animals'. We then cover all general aspects of veganism comprehensively and show one of the differences sepecific features of ethical veganism. Everybody wins. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Perhaps "commodification" could be an article (I actually thought of doing this this morning) but the meaning is slightly different. "Commodification" presumes that animals should not have commodity status, and in doing so implies the sort of mental reduction you describe above. That's not the phrase used here, though, for a reason. "Commodity status" is not controversial and merely expresses that animals are commodities, which is the state of affairs that ethical vegans oppose. @Martin Hogbin: No, your interpretation is not supported by the sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:00, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, after a brief look at the literature it appears that "commodification" of animals has at least three distinct meanings: 1) objectification and related issues of framing, 2) an increase in the commercial use of (especially wild) animals, 3) something to do with Marxist economic theory (which I honestly don't quite follow). I think that term probably would only add confusion here, and it seems most of our sources don't use it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting insights above. I also like "commodity status" and i think it expresses the same sorts of ideas, to my ears, which are supported by many sources as well. SageRad (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have to say what the sources say but we do not have to use their language, because nobody will understand it. Sammy and SarahSV have both insisted that 'commodfity status' means just the fact that animals can be bought and sold but SageRad thinks it means something else. If editors here cannot even agree what it means we cannot possibly expect our readers to know.

If you absolutely must (for a reason that I cannot understand) use the term 'commodity status' then the way to do this would be to say exactly how the animal rights sources use the term and than say something like, 'which animal rights literature refers to as 'commodity status'. That is neutral, strictly factual, and accurately follows the sources.

Why we follow the sources but do not use their language

An article on left wing politics may refer to people in employment as 'wage slaves', arguing that people are forced to work to stay alive and therefore are merely slaves who are paid a wage. When WP describes this politics we do not use the term 'wage slave' which is used in the left wing political sources but terms used in normal speech, such a worker or employee.

In an article on White supremacy we can use white supremacy sources to tell us what these people believe and what they do but we would never use their language of offensive terms and racial slurs in Wikipedia's voice in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

This is obviously nothing like that. As has been made thoroughly clear, it's in no way controversial that animals are commodities. The vegan equivalent of this sort of thing might be animal holocaust. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The wage slave analogy is very similar. Find me some reliable sources that show that the term 'commodity status' is in general usage, outside anaimal rights and vegan literature, to refer to animals.

The white supremacy argument is obviously more extreme and is only given as an example to make clear what I am talking about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The difference here is that people don't generally even talk about animals in the current food system, as they're generally "out of sight, out of mind" and show up as meat in styrofoam trays wrapped in plastic, or as milk in plastic jugs. When people do talk about animals in the food system, they often do (in my experience) speak to the conditions of the animals with some regret, in many cases. Maybe not the same language of "commodity status" but similar concepts. And Wikivoice is not limited to the common parlance of the populace. SageRad (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, you wrote: "Find me some reliable sources that show that the term 'commodity status' is in general usage" to refer to animals. You've been shown several such sources. Here is an expert in property law: David N. Cassuto, "Owning What You Eat: The Discourse of Food," in J. Ronald Engel, et al. (ed.), Democracy, Ecological Integrity and International Law, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009 (emphasis added).

p. 313: "the ultimate reality of the animals' commodity status inevitably imbued that bond [between farmers and animals] with a sense of unreality," and

p. 314: "It was impossible to escape the animals' commodity status even as ethics demanded their decent treatment."

SarahSV ^(talk) 19:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting discussion of this in Kathryn Gillespie, "Nonhuman animal resistance and the improprieties of live property," in Irus Braverman (ed), Animals, Biopolitics, Law, Routledge, 2015, chapter six. Google won't let me link to it. See in particular the section called "The Animal-as-Commodity." SarahSV ^(talk) 20:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, would you please acknowledge that you have seen the David Cassuto reference above? He is a law professor specializing in property who discusses the commodity status of animals. He has nothing to do with veganism that I can see. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Move to close this thread

With the stipulation of a three-month moratorium on this and any related discussion. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Support as proposer. Viriditas (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Support. We do not need a moratorium but discussion seems to have got us nowhere. The only way forwards is to bring in some outside opinion. I will start an RfC. That is the standard way to resolve intractible disputes that cannot be resolved by civil discussion. As always, I will abide by the result of the RfC. The question is very well defined and can be asked in a simple and neutral manner.

Should the definition at the start of the lead of Veganism contain the wording, 'and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I an not supporting the shuting down of discussion just stating that this discussion needs to opened up to people who are not vegan supporters. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Martin, you are being the opposite of clear. You most clearly do not support my proposal, as you have voted to support continuing discussion in a new RFC, a position that represents the exact opposite of a moratorium. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say "gotten us nowhere", I think you mean "gotten me nowhere". In this and the previous thread, Talk:Veganism/Archive 10#Commodity status of animals, the editors involved were User:TonyClarke, User:SlimVirgin, User:FourViolas, User:Viriditas, User:SageRad, and myself. Despite much discussion, every single one of them ultimately disagreed with you. Other editors, especially User:FourViolas, thoroughly supported their positions with references to sources, whereas you have relied solely on your subjective perceptions. Consensus is firmly against this strange proposal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Support as I believe everyone is tired of this dead-end conversation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
No shutting down or moratorium on discussion -- I do not support shutting down a conversation. I think there has been much movement. Sometimes things take a lot of discussion. I cannot support a blanket shutting down of conversation of this kind. SageRad (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I am going to open this same discussion up to a wider audience by means of an RfC. We will all be able to continue there. If you want to continue to discuss the relevant issues with me or anyone else in a civil manner you are free to do it on my talk page, or, of course, here if you prefer. No decision has yet been reached above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If you do that, Martin, I will shut it down, using the consensus in this discussion to support my action. You aren't listening. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

There isn't full consensus here to shut down the dialogue. I do wish to continue to discuss until the parties are satisfied, even if that takes a while, as long as it seems that the parties are in the dialog in good faith. I don't think that MH is filibustering or attempting to be obstructionist, even if this is frustrating to some people. I find it interesting, and i think it's a good thing to talk out until the dialog feels finished. I don't sense that MH is in an "IDHT" mode, but that there may be subtle parts of the concepts that need to be laid on the table fully. I am beginning to understand something about the nature of the use of specialty language that i think the editor is referring to. As i've also been the subject of people trying to shut down a dialogue at times, when i still had a point that i felt was important and real, i understand the need to maintain an open dialogue until completion, unless someone is being disruptive or filibustering. I think my attitude is in line with the meaning and spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. SageRad (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Support. Martin has been offered source after source, from ethical vegan philosophers to the United Nations to property-law specialists to show (a) that animals are referred to as commodities; (b) that the term "commodity status" is used of animals; and (c) that ethical vegans reject this. It's not an unusual term; it isn't hard to understand; it's used by many different types of sources, including academic, and it's a succinct way to summarize the issue. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose I went to the commodity article linked and after farmed animals it describes "companion animals, working animals and animals in sport". I seriously doubt the general and broad school of veganism rejects pets. I actually know a bunch of strict vegans who own pets. They object to the use of leather and similar items, but not pets. This differentiates them from vegetarians. I think Martin's absolutely right here and at the very least the wording should be changed. What the lead currently describes is the subsect of veganism known as strict ethical. There exist ethical and strict ethical. It's obviously a mistake to describe the general school as the subsect. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources

This edit added vegan societies and other websites. These are not reliable sources for anything other than their own activities (e.g. their history), or for issues where no other source is available and the matter is not contentious, medical, etc. For the issue at hand ("associated philosophy"), we need academic or similarly high-quality sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:25, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You refuse mainstream sources and only push extremely fringe sources that were published by either a fringe academian or not by an academian at all? I shall thus then remove any such I see and add numerous dubious source tags to the article. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You wrote above that you had added four vegan websites, the "first results in google." What is veganism.com, for example? And we've already said multiple times that we can't start the article with a Vegan Society definition.

This isn't the way to do research, especially not when discussing philosophy. We need academic sources for that point. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are you using brief mentions of some academic stating that they are an ethical vegan and then later 2 paragraphs later than they don't think of their pet as a commodity as a source for the definition of veganism altogether. This is as cherry-picked and badly sourced as it can get. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, you state that Vegan Society can't be used but it's currently used as a source multiple times in the article? What? And I searched this page for any discussion about it and apparently in sammy's view Vegan Society is trying to push some view? What? It's a view all the dictionaries agree with? Instead again we are using brief diary-like mentions as sources to push the claim that vegans reject the propertyhood of animals. It seems I'll need to use a journal finder for some academic to not include commodity in the definition. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a paper that says half the vegans from a study followed Vegan Society's definition for vegan. The rest? They were even LOOSER in their veganism: "Half of the vegans in Cherry's study followed the Vegan Society's strict definition of veganism while the other half created a personal definition that allowed for more transgressions such as eating honey or dairy". Again, Vegan Society doesn't include "commodity status" or propertyship. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is another paper which mentions Vegan Society and talks about the definition for veganism. Again, Vegan Society is presented as the more hardcore. And again, even they don't include commodity status or propertyship. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a third paper which uses Vegan Society's as its basis. Fourth one here which defines veganism as mainly about animal products and points out a Vegan Society quote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker The first source you cite is referring to the second one, by Cherry. That's an ethnographic study of a non-random sample of 24 vegans, which uses the phrase "the Vegan Society definition" to mean the list of products vegans should not use according to the Vegan Society. Notice how some of the respondents said they used some animal product but still considered themselves vegan due to their philosophical disposition. The fourth paper is about vegetarianism broadly, and is not a great source here. The third pretty clearly explains the main sticking point of this discussion:

Empirical sociological studies of vegans are rare (McDonald 2000; Cole 2008). When vegans are present as research participants, they are usually treated as a subset of vegetarians and their veganism tends to be viewed as a form of dietary asceticism involving exceptional efforts of self-transformation (see for example Beardsworth and Keil 2004). However, research also reveals the prominence of animal rights2 as a motivation for many vegetarians (Amato and Partridge 1989; Beardsworth and Keil 1992, 1993, 1997). Given the subsumption of vegans among a larger group of vegetarians in much of the research literature, the importance of animal rights as a particular motivation for vegans is underexplored. When vegans are researched specifically, animal rights clearly emerges as the primary motivation (McDonald et al. 1999; McDonald 2000; Larsson et al. 2003). It is therefore plausible to assert that on the basis of existing evidence, veganism is understood by most vegans (though not necessarily in these terms) as an aspect of anti-speciesist practice. However, the focus on diet, and specifically on dietary ‘restriction’, in much of the extant literature, tends to perpetuate a veganism-as-deviance model that fosters academic misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the meaning of veganism for vegans (Cole 2008).

In other words, most vegans are ethical vegans, and the presentation of veganism as a philosophy in addition to a diet is correct. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The first one does refer to the second one but has its own study as well, which you probably didn't notice. And yes, many vegans still use animal products that are gathered without harming the animals, like milk.
Third one's ethical veganism differs from Francione's kind. In reality ethical veganism is the general veganism, but to veganarchists all ethical veganism has to be veganarchism, because to them there is no ethical veganism without veganarchism. And the third one doesn't mention commodity status and property anywhere, just like all of these. Commodity status is not a part of mainstream ethical veganism.
Fourth's about vegetarianism but it talks about veganism as well. Your sources are laughably worse than this.
No, you just came up with that from the top of your head.
And lastly, these were only sources about Vegan Society. Wait a while, I'll hand you the normal defining ones. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't really understand everything you're saying. What do you mean "my sources" - I just referred to yours. I also don't know why we keep coming back to Francione, since I didn't bring him up. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Francione is the singular source used to define ethical veganism to be about commodity status. No other source clarifies it. I tried removing most of them because they're not even about veganism but animal rights. The other two notable ones has academics define them as ethical vegans AND then state that they oppose commodity status. Those two could simply be veganarchists who don't know the term. And even Francione above in other context wrote that it's about opposition to animal products rather, and also wrote that commodity status is on the periphery of the debate. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is replace "and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" with "and an associated philosophy that rejects the exploitation of animals". The commodity article can be linked to below in the body where it talks about it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:57, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact there might be an article for animal exploitation so that could be linked to instead in the lead. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would have no problem saying "an associated philosophy that rejects the exploitation and commodity status of animals." But (a) we can't use websites as sources for something like this. Vegan societies argue a lot about this issue and fall out with each other. We need academics to provide an overview. And (b) the commodity status is important, because exploitation is not the only issue. Lots of people reject exploitation. But the issue for ethical vegans is not simply one of how animals are treated, as I explained to you above with the slavery analogy. It is about animals as property and objects of trade. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding numerous academic papers which define it but which don't mention commodity status or propertyhood or anything alike anywhere. Your only actual source "defining" it so is a brief quip from a radical veganarchist, Francione, who is defined by most sources as radical. And even him in another context defined it as only rejecting animal products. And even in another source said that commodity status is in the periphery of the debate. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Laughable hypocrisy. Now you restored your sources which don't even have anything to do with the text they're supposed to cite after just removing 4 of my sources from general vegan societies because "not reliable". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

In addition I'm finding sources which talk only about abolitionist veganism in relation to the commodity status. Abolition is they odd keyword you used before, right? It's so plainly a fringe sect. Why is it being attributed to the general concept of rejecting animal products known as veganism? There is no other term for rejecting animal products.

Here are dictionary definitions for veganism and vegan:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vegan

a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vegan

A vegetarian who eats plant products only, especially one who uses no products derived from animals, as fur or leather.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vegan

1. a vegetarian who omits all animal products from the diet. 2. a person who does not use any animal products, as leather or wool.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/vegan

A person who does not eat or use animal products:

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vegan

a person who does not eat or use any animal products, such as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, or leather

http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/vegan

a person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any other purpose

http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/vegan

a person who does not eat any animal products such as meat, milk or eggs. Some vegans do not use animal products such as silk or leather.

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/vegan

If you’re a vegan, you’re a strict vegetarian, and you don’t eat anything that comes from an animal — not even eggs or dairy. Most vegans also avoid using animal products like wool and leather.e

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That's even how our infobox defines it as:

"Description

Elimination of the use of animal products, particularly in diet"

I also looked at the history of this article and the commodity status wasn't originally next to general vegans but only next to ethical vegans: diff 1 and diff 2. The person who did these lead edits has been blocked a massive 4 times for edit warring on this very article and possibly has a permanent ban from editing this article ever again. And in addition he used Vegan Society as a source for this edit but there was nothing about commodity in the quotes he provided, he was just ORing it. This is originally a complete OR addition from a hardcore edit warrer. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Lede paragraph considerations

The lede paragraph currently reads:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals.[9] A follower of veganism is known as a vegan.

This writing may endorse the concept of the commodity status of animals in Wikivoice as a thing that is definitely real. While i personally believe it is real, and see copious evidence of commodity status of animals in places where some people's attitudes toward animals are revealed, i can also see that it may not be an accepted reality for some people. On the other hand, the sentence might be interpreted to say that the commodity status of animals is a concept within the associated philosophy -- but to me this is unclear. So i might suggest to resolve this longstanding dispute over this content and whether it's POV by adding an explicit attribution by adding "what many see as", as follows:

Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects what many see as the commodity status of animals.[9] A follower of veganism is known as a vegan.

The reader then can understand that there is a point of view that includes a reality of the commodity status of animals that many people believe to be true, and then can ask herself whether they believe this to be true, as well. It avoids a possible neutrality issue by not actually endorsing in Wikivoice that the concept of the commodity status of animals reflects reality -- unless we here agree as editors that this does reflect reality. I personally do think that it reflects reality, but i can see that there may be other ways of seeing the world, and i'm open to discussion around this. SageRad (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Not only does it reflect reality, there is no source anywhere that disputes it. Please don't fall for Martin Hogbin's nonsense. He habitually raises completely unsupported "issues", tries to draw attention to the page with RfC's, noticeboad discussions, etc., and hopes for someone to come along, take a casual look and join his side. Then subsequent editors look at multiple people acting like there is an issue and assume there is substance to it.

There isn't. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy1339, i am going to respond below on a new line, but it's not ok to call an editor's contributions "nonsense". You may disagree, but it's not civil to denigrate genuine thoughts as nonsense or saying that there isn't substance to it. SageRad (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking a lot about POV and neutrality lately, and i think this could make sense, and could actually be more powerful for all concerned in a sense. Let me explain. Firstly, it's possible that a person can see some use of animal products as very much commodified relations, and yet other use of animal products as not commodified relations. As an example, i have personally kept chickens and had relationships with them (please don't laugh, i mean as beings i respected and cared for them, and they for me as well, as far as i can understand chickens). I definitely see commodification of chickens happening on a large scale with CAFOs, but i could also see symbiotic non-commodified relationships being possible. I could also see eating wild animals, or finding eggs in the wild, as being part of nature's food cycles, and not as commodification. That's one level. I can also see though i do not share, that some people really do believe that non-human animals are here for humans to use, and that it's not commodification. I don't believe this, nor do i think most people believe this, but it's a real viewpoint in the world. As for sources, i'll have to look for this. Nothing comes to mind immediately. It's my knowledge of some people's viewpoints on which i am drawing. SageRad (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As for a source that supports the claim that there are other points of view about whether animals are commodified, please see sections 1a and 2b at this link to the "Animals and Ethics" entry at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. SageRad (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As to the effect of having "what many view as" in the lede paragraph, it could actually be more powerful toward readers coming to see that there are indeed people who see that animals are at a commodity status in the present world in many cases. It may be more powerful toward people figuring out for themselves what they believe. SageRad (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I replied to the first comment above, where you also posted it. Regarding the second, we simply have no RS which shows that people who dispute this actually exist outside of this talk page. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One person outside of this talk page who disputed this was Aristotle:

Some philosophers deny that animals warrant direct moral concern due to religious or philosophical theories of the nature of the world and the proper place of its inhabitants. One of the earliest and clearest expressions of this kind of view comes to us from Aristotle (384-322 B.C.E.). According to Aristotle, there is a natural hierarchy of living beings. The different levels are determined by the abilities present in the beings due to their natures. While plants, animals, and human beings are all capable of taking in nutrition and growing, only animals and human beings are capable of conscious experience. This means that plants, being inferior to animals and human beings, have the function of serving the needs of animals and human beings. Likewise, human beings are superior to animals because human beings have the capacity for using reason to guide their conduct, while animals lack this ability and must instead rely on instinct. It follows, therefore, that the function of animals is to serve the needs of human beings. This, according to Aristotle, is "natural and expedient" (Regan and Singer, 1989: 4-5).

This is from the source i cited above. SageRad (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: I think there is some confusion about what the topic of discussion is. Commodity status of animals concerns animals' legal status as property. Your links to the encyclopedia have nothing to do with this. I think you are thinking of a different concept, commodification. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Again, your quote above has literally nothing to do with the fact that the commodity status of animals is real and is not subjective. I respect that you're trying very hard to work out a compromise here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think that the phrase "commodity status of animals" as well as most vegans' considerations as to ethical reasons for being vegan do have to do with commodification. I read the phrase to connote relations of commodification, and not solely the property status of owned animals in some humans' minds. I find it hard not to read it like that. No matter how you cut it, i am pretty sure that some vegans' issues with the use of animal products in the present day food industry is the ways in which animals suffer because of being treated as objects, which is a part of commodification and objectification, which i do think is implied strongly by "commodity status of animals". SageRad (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: Alright, that's also what Martin Hogbin said. However can you provide any sources to support it? Because no one has. Meanwhile there is a very thorough accounting by FourViolas in the section above, which details what is meant. In point of fact, ethical vegans do object to the plain fact that animals are property. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: See for example this book. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps this source, the section "The Problem: Animals as Property and Commodities" shows the connections between the words "property status" and "commodities" and concerns over treatment of animals based on whether they're viewed as beings or as property (commodity). SageRad (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: That source (which I don't believe is an RS) illustrates this. It gives reasons why vegans oppose the property/commodity status of animals, while making it clear that the fact of ownership is itself objected to. To draw an analogy previously made by FourViolas, abolitionism is the view that humans should not be property. Abolitionists may have been be motivated by a belief that slavery causes suffering, but the defining feature of their philosophy was opposition to, as 4V said "the whole institution of people-owning." Furthermore, to say that they opposed this is not taking an anti-slavery POV. The existence of slavery was a fact; their opposition to its existence was also a fact. It's a neutral and accurate statement. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is a far worse problem with 'commodity status' and this is that nobody knows what it means. Even editors on this page do not agree what it is intended to mean. In fact even the editors who have insisted on these exact words do not seem willing to commit to one single meaning. When I asked what it was intended to mean, I was told to go and read some books on the subject. If it simply means, 'legal ownership' the why do we not just use those words. If it is intended to mean something else how are our readers expected to decode this terminology? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As always, you are misrepresenting the facts, and using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX for your opinions, engaging in civil POV pushing. The meaning of the phrase was explained with extreme thoroughness here and in other places in this thread. A well-referenced article was created to explain it, in case anyone else shares your alleged confusion: commodity status of animals. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy please stop your personal attacks, my POV, as you call it, seems to be shared by several of the respondents to the RfC above. The fact that an article was hastily created just before the RfC actually shows that I was right. It was quite obvious that our readers would have no idea what the phrase was meant to mean and it was necessary to create a page explaining how the term is used in animal rights and vegan literature. the meaning given in that article is not the same as was originaly stated by editors here, just 'legal ownership'. The commodity status of animals article itself is very far from neutral showing only how the words are construed by animal rights activists. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Almost all the editors above disagreed with you, including two who were initially confused and then admitted this.

It is not a personal attack to bea clear about what you are doing. You make a lot of noise on talk pages, wait for someone to wander along and say something similar, and then come back and say "look, I was right." See WP:CPUSH and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact.

The commodity status of animals article has little to do with animal rights activism. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

My original complaint was that the term 'commodity status of animals' was vegan rhetoric and not in general usage but specific to animal rights or sources and that its meaning would be ambiguous or unclear to our readers. I was told that the meaning was perfectly clear. If that is so, why was us suddenly necessary to write an article explaining what the words 'commodity status of animals' meant? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

As I recall, SlimVirgin wrote the article when the large number of references provided to you piled up to article-size. Your original complaint that the term is "vegan rhetoric" was wrong, as those references show, and you have not provided any references to support this wrong idea. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion: If what people mean by "commodity status" is "property status" then why not say "property status" instead? SageRad (talk) 08:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

That was discussed some while back and rejected. Why not just say, 'can be bought and sold' if that is what is meant? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

'can be bought and sold' is another mouth full. Why not: ... and the associated philosophy that rejects animal commodification? Jonpatterns (talk) 13:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Because "can be bought and sold" is easily understood by many more readers, whereas the ten-dollar word "commodification" is a mouthful and will require special reading by many readers to understand it. Secondly, there's also been discernment here between "commodity status" and "commodification" as having two different meanings in above discussion, although to me they connote the same basic meaning, without looking them up, and this is something we need to pay attention to as editors, as well (common understandings of terms). SageRad (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: @Jonpatterns: You both came late to this conversation, which Martin has been pushing for months despite the fact that consensus has been firmly against him the whole time. The issues you are raising have been dealt with before. Please ctrl-F to the point in this page where I wrote "Quod erat demonstrandum" - jokingly, thinking the extremely thorough discussion above had been unnecessary. FourViolas' comments above that provide the relevant references and explain what is wrong with other proposed wordings. Basically, 1. "commodification" is not what is meant - what vegans object to is (some form of) property status, and 2. while "property status" and "commodity status" are used interchangeably in some of the literature, and it's indeed an extremely minor distinction, some philosophers have argued that "commodity status" is in fact a more precise term for what vegans object to. This particularly concerns the views of Favre cited in FourViolas' comments. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If it has already been debated it may be worth adding to the FAQ box at the top of the talk page.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jon, the problem is that it is still not clear exactly what 'commodity status' is meant to mean. At one extreme it can mean just that animals can be bought and sold. At the other extreme it can mean that animals can be treated like any other commodity and humans can do whatever they like to them. These are two vastly different things. The first is undoubtedly true, humans can buy and sell animals. The other extreme, that we can treat animals in any way that we like, without regard for their feelings, health or welfare, is not something that only vegans object to; the vast majority of the population would prbably object to this.

If you think you know what 'commodity status' is meant to mean then please tell me. If you do not know, then try asking here, as I have done, and see what response you get. The specially created article commodity status of animals discusses the way that animal rights writers use that term but is still unclear about exactly where they draw the line between the acceptable and the unacceptable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems there are a number of different concepts being mixed together. One is the legal status of animals. A second is what practices are used with animals - being sold. A third being how animals are treated when they are sold.

Secondly, I am unclear whether all/most Vegans don't object to property status, but specifically being sold as commodities? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Jonpatterns: Right, there is a confusing mix of ideas in this discussion. In answer to your question, the first issue is the major one, the second issue is a very minor and subtle point which leads us to use commodity rather than property, and this ultimately has to do with views expressed by Favre which you can find in FourViolas' comments above. The third issue is a red-herring of Martin's invention, and the sources don't refer to this.

The other thing going on here is that the issue is not characterizing what behaviors most vegans do or do not endorse, but rather what reliable sources say the ethical vegan philosophy is based on. They seem to more or less agree on this criterion - it's based on opposition to the use of animals as commercial instruments; i.e. their commodity status. Vegans are also likely to argue that the commercial use of animals causes them to suffer, and justify their position in this way - this is particularly true of protectionists. However, they generally agree on a desire to abolish animal industries, and this seems to be the defining feature of ethical veganism, according to reliable sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a note about the article I linked - I notice it is badly needing attention being entirely based on primary sources, and misstates the protectionist position. Generally speaking, protectionists seek both welfare reforms and animal liberation. The classic book on this position is Peter Singer's Animal Liberation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[]WP:LEAD]] says that the lead of an article should be, 'a summary of its most important contents'. The current leads only refers to one section of vegans; ethical vegans. Many dietary vegans do not object to mere animal ownership and may even have pets themselves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The current lede is pretty fairly balanced between dietary and ethical veganism. I don't see hat you're talking about - the first sentence even says "particularly in diet", and subsequent paragraphs go into some depth about vegan diets. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence, which appears to define 'veganism' says, 'Veganism is the practice ... and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals'. That definition excludes dietary vegans. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restored this tweak of SlimVirgin's devising, which was agreed upon when you raised this issue six months ago. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Martin Hogbin: Please explain this revert of the above-described edit. You did not object to this solution the last time around, in July. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what the intended differnce in meaning is between your new text and the old. Could you explain please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The usage of "both" indicates these are two (very) closely related meanings of the same word. Please look at my response to Jab843 above. Note that there is some evidence suggesting that most vegans are ethical vegans (by a slight majority perhaps), and notice how Zamir (the second source) uses the word "vegan". Also, if you are indifferent to this edit as your comment suggests, you may as well self-revert. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The wording is unclear. You wording is of the form 'Veganism is both X and Y'. Does that mean that to be a vegan you must do both X and Y, or that a vegan is defined as someone who does either X or Y, or something else? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The distinction is made extremely explicit directly following this. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The fact that the problem is solved later is not a sufficient reason for making the first line of the lead, which appears to define what veganism is, ambiguous. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, given that anyone who reads the next two sentences will not be confused at all, I don't think it's a very big problem. Simply put, veganism is both a dietary restriction and an associated philosophy. The sources support this and it would be inaccurate to mention one aspect without the other. You could argue that we should launch directly into the distinctions, opening "dietary veganism is this, while ethical veganism is that" but this would obscure the fact that the two are intimately connected. The dietary restriction was invented because of philosophical consideration regarding the ethics of commercial animal use (see refs to Watson and others in the body). Look at the two sources I mentioned in my most recent reply in the RfC above: the first one is a study which shows that many vegans don't even know which kind of vegan they are; the second one is a philosophy paper which identifies veganism as a belief system which has largely to do with the reasons for adopting a vegan diet. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:MOSBEGIN, which says 'The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is', so the logical place to start would be with a sentence that defines what veganism is. That is WP policy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence does define what veganism is - a set of dietary and lifestyle restrictions based on eliminating the use of products of animal origin and the associated view that living or dead animals should not be objects of commerce. It then clarifies that some people only follow the dietary restrictions without necessarily holding the latter view, and these are called dietary vegans or strict vegetarians. Based on your previous comments I gather you want both to eliminate ethical veganism from the lede, and to copy the UK-based Vegan Society's definition into the lede; neither of these directly contradictory approaches is supported by the sources. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I want (WP policy requires) the first sentence to include all major forms of veganism, dietary and ethical. At present it seems to me that the first sentence excludes many forms of veganism, for example dietary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I see that SV has now restored 'both'. I do not think adding and edit warring a new word into the subject of an RfC during the RfC itself is particularly helpful. Marking the edit as minor is rude. It is contentious wording that is still being discussed. What happened to WP:BRD. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

By my lights you didn't actually object - you just said it didn't address your concern - so I don't see how you can call it "contentious wording". Besides, when you raised this issue last time neither you nor anyone else objected to this fix, and nothing has changed since then, so SV's edit seems to be based on consensus. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Both isn't a new word. It was there before, and someone removed it. Martin, you complained that the first sentence seemed to describe only one form of veganism, then when Sammy noticed that's because a word had been removed and he fixed it, you reverted and complained about that too. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see where 'both' has been there before. It has not been there since the start of the RfC about the first sentence of the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

When I restored it I linked the diff where it was added. It stood for a long time subsequently. The discussion is in the talk page archives. This was July 1, 2015. --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 1

Veganism as I know is vegetarianism plus the rejection of leather and similar animal-derived products. Not the rejection of pets. I know a family of vegans who are strict in their beliefs but who own "pets". The article currently combines ethical and strict ethical veganism into one. Strict ethical pretty much rejects any sort of interaction with animals as I see it. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Even our first source states: "Going beyond dietary veganism, 'lifestyle' vegans also refrain from using leather, wool or any NHA-derived ingredient." It's not describing any sort of pet ownership. The first source also states that "Although veganism may represent a matter of diet or lifestyle for some, ethical veganism is a profound moral and political commitment to abolition on the individual level and extends not only to matters of food but also to the wearing or using of animal products." Same thing again. Nothing about pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: "Abolition" in that quote is the sense of the word in abolitionism (animal rights). It's defined as opposition to animals' commodity/property status. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)'

What? But at the end it's specified only to mean wearing and using animal products. I hate to have bad faith here but are you trying to hijack the vegan movement altogether to mean ending pet ownership instead of just cease of use of animal products? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I know it's not immediately obvious, but as Sammy1339 says abolitionism (animal rights) actually does refer precisely to an objection to animals being property.

Again, at the end it's specified only to mean wearing and using animal products. That source seems now cherry-picked to have contained some sort of keyword the original writer probably didn't even realize meant the worlds to someone. That someone didn't mind the fact that it was clarified to only be about wearing and using animal products and not pet ownership, when he added this source. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No disrespect intended, as you wouldn't be expected to know this if you hadn't studied this, but the author, Gary Francione, is very well aware of what he means by "abolition": he is a pioneer of the term and idea, and is the philosopher most closely associated with the position in the entire field of animal ethics. The sense in which he uses the term throughout his work is precisely that described in abolitionism (animal rights). FourViolas (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, in specifying veganism he specified it to be about wearing and using animal products. The other matter is of animal rights and not veganism. It's past veganism. He might have simply used the word out of habit. And all sources describing the person I can find pretty much disagree with him. Again, why is a fringe theorist the spokesperson for all veganism? Why aren't actual vegan organizations quoted? I looked at one's definition for veganism and it's firstly animal products and secondly harmful exploitation described as medical experiments and entertainment like horce races. Again, pet ownership nowhere. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Vegans' resolution of the apparent contradiction between following a philosophy that objects to animals as property on one hand, and owning pets on the other, usually goes something like this: "In principle I think this arrangement is wrong, but until society gives animals more rights I might as well take care of these ones as well as possible." See PETA and these philosophers. FourViolas (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That PETA article is not about ownership but bad treatment. Even then it means that they do not currently object to pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The central thesis of the PETA article is that the issues are one and the same: As long as people treat animals as toys, possessions, or commodities rather than as individuals with feelings, families, and friendships, widespread neglect and abuse is inevitable.. FourViolas (talk) 04:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You are picking a poetic statement about the bad treatment as possession to mean ending pet ownership altogether. That statement means not treating your pet like car keys, not ending all existence of actual pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree; give the source another look. It is important, also, to keep our companion animals from reproducing, which perpetuates a class of animals who are forced to rely on humans to survive. PETA opposes the principle of pet ownership so strongly that they actually seek to phase pet species out of existence rather than let them be property. The alternative view within the vegan community is that of the two philosophy papers I linked: pet ownership is indeed immoral, but we could replace it with something like guardianship (with more legal rights and protections) and then it would be okay. FourViolas (talk) 05:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I now remembered that PETA is the organization Anglos consider quite radical. How does a fringe group speak for all vegans? And those philosophy papers do not talk about veganism. Two philosophers pondering about pet ownership. What in the world does this prove? Now that I think about it, neither did the PETA one have anything to do with veganism. We have sources in the article talking about veganism and they state it's about animal products. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry if the proposal on AN incensed you, but there was a reason for it. We're not trying to hijack anything. In fact the guy who wrote that quote has dogs, as you can see: Gary Francione. Vegans are not usually opposed to people having pets, but they are opposed to puppy mills and the like. This is part of the reason why some authors have argued that "property status" is not the right term, and we ought to use "commodity status" instead. Vegans may not oppose having pets but they do oppose using and profiting from them; veganism was founded in opposition to animal industries, on the basis of wanting to abolish the commercial use of animals; furthermore most vegans are ethical vegans, and there is no distinction between "ethical" and "strict ethical." We've been over these issues with Martin (except the last one) about a hundred times, for months. Editors have produced tons of sources supporting this and he has yet to cite a source. Although I can see why at first glance it looks like where bullies; he feeds off of that. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems like that to me. You make and force vast and general statements about vegans you have no sources for at all. All vegans now oppose all commercial dog breeding; even the good, free-range kind? Again, there already are sources that state veganism is the rejection of animal products. They do not mention pet ownership. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I perhaps spoke too strongly. There are all manner of vegans who probably believe all sorts of things. Veganism, however, is founded on the principle of abolishing the commercial use of animals, per almost all reliable sources. The pet issue actually is a little hairy - no pun intended - and I suspect there are differing opinions on that. However, it may interest you to note that Zamir centers a large part of his argument against veganism on an endorsement of the trade in pets. Francione (abolitionist) argues for phasing pets out of existence in this book and others, while Garner (protectionist) simply skirts the issue here, noting on page 119 that "...the two major issues in animal ethics are the treatment of animals on farms and treatment of animals in laboratories, where the greatest degree of suffering takes place. This is also why the keeping of pet or companion animals, as opposed to their treatment, is really on the periphery of the debate (despite the fact that it involves restrictions on liberty)." (Protectionists are the ones who talk about "suffering".) Tony Milligan here gives a fairly comprehensive treatment of various animal ethics positions; he writes "...pethood is still somewhat tainted through its association with property, with the idea that this is my pet, and not yours. Animal advocates tend, therefore, to refer instead to 'companion animals' who have 'animal guardians' rather than owners. In some parts of the US, legal standing for this classification has been secured. This draws on the more positive side of the concept of pethood while removing some of its unwelcome historical connotations." So, generally speaking, pets present complicated issues which are tangential to the main point, which is still that vegans believe animals' legal status should not be that of commodities. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That is just pure OR. Veganism is stated by our sources to be mainly the opposition of animal products and secondly products derived from animal exploitation like medical experiments. And the Zamir source you just provided focuses on the fact that vegetarians eat eggs. Pet ownership is on some back page as a tiny sidenote I assume? And Francione already stated that veganism is rejection of wearing and using animal products. Of him you again provide some back page sidenote where he specifically states that pet ownership is on the periphery of the debate. That just proves it again. Last quote you provide has nothing to do with veganism, and at this point you were probably scarce of anything close to worthwhile to use after those shabby attempts before. Last source also states on another page that most lifestyle veganism is moderate with little to do with Francione-style activism. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The whole first section of Zamir's paper is devoted to pets. I can type up part of it if you like. Regarding Francione, he completely equates abolitionism with veganism and favors phasing pet species out of existence - I can provide numerous sources for that if you want. The third one was Garner, not Francione, in a book in which he debates Francione on the foundations of veganism. The last one, again, has everything to do with veganism if you look at the book. But there is some substance to what you're saying, which is that, as Garner notes, pets are not the central issue. Still, it doesn't change the fact that vegans don't believe animals (let's say for the moment animals other than pets) should be commodities; the last source explains how they may reconcile this view with keeping pets. Also, I never said most vegans agreed with Francione's views, but he is one of the best-respected scholars in the area and I wanted to represent a range of opinions. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no it's not. It's dedicated to vegetarians and their habit of eating eggs and drinking milk. I can type the entirety of it if you'd like. And regarding Francione, no he doesn't according to two sources. One which you just provided where he stated it's on the periphery. And the third one talked about Francione, I didn't state it was him. And the quote didn't have relation to veganism and the definition of it like I wrote. At best it could be stretched to be about radical ethical vegans. All of our sources define veganism to be mainly about not using animal products. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Much of this is not relevant, since it's actually an argument against veganism, but I'll reproduce the whole first section and the segue into it, since I suspect you'll not be satisfied with anything less.

...I will argue that vegetarianism is a better regulative ideal and a better form of pro-animal strategic protest compared to veganism. I begin by arguing against veganism. I shall then turn to tentative veganism.
Pro-animal action partly depends on how one envisages ideal relations between humans and nonhumans. “Stop all coercion and violence,” such is the most extreme pro-animal position imaginable. According to this position, usage and killing of whatever kind are to stop. Pets are also out, as having them involves limiting their movement and may affect other wild animals. Regulative beliefs of this kind will surely prescribe moral veganism. A less extreme position allows pets in the regulative ideal, but bans raising animals for meat, milk, and eggs regardless of the conditions in which this is done. This too implies moral veganism. A second notch down is the ideal that regulates moral vegetarianism: here animals are never killed for their flesh, but they are maintained as pets, or for eggs and milk. Moral vegetarianism is consistent with eating animals that die on their own (scavenging) or using their hides after they die. Euthanasia is also practiced, and is considered justified so long as it is done for the animal’s own welfare, rather than for the purpose of using its body later.3 I will now argue that moral veganism of both kindsis a bad ideal both for humans and for animals. To do so, I intend to consider pets first, since if our attitude to them can be morally vindicated, such can function as a regulative ideal for other human–animal relations. Well-kept pets are a source of joy to their owners, live a much better life than they would have lived in the wild, and, as far as I can tell, pay a small price for such conditions. A petless world is bad for cats and dogs, an overwhelming number of which would not survive out of human care. It is bad for humans, since they lose a large source of happiness, and it is bad for the animal welfare cause, as strong relations with pets start many people off on the track of thinking morally about animals. Acts against the will of pets can be condemned as coercive only if we anthropocize pets into autonomous individuals. But it seems to me that the more adequate organizing moral framework through which pets are to be understood is quasi-paternalistic: pets resemble children, though unlike children, who enter a temporary paternalistic relation with a guardian, pets remain in a permanent paternalistic relationship. The relationship is not fully paternalistic, since, unlike children, one is not merely a guardian acting with their interests in mind, but one is also acting with the interest of preserving the relationship as such. Many morally problematic invasive owner actions such as limiting movement, spaying or declawing are conceptualized (and sometimes justified) in this light. One is sometimes acting on behalf of the animal (a neutered cat lives much longer), but one is also acting on behalf of the relationship: one cannot, for example, keep a cat and its litter, or one cannot maintain one’s cat and one’s baby when the former is not declawed and the latter develops a habit of pulling hairy things. Justified owner actions with regard to pets are thus either an action directly on behalf of the pet, or an action in the interest of maintaining the relationship between owner and pet, a relationship which is itself an overall good for the pet. This obviously does not determine which action can legitimately be perceived as justified so as to maintain the relationship (e.g., cutting the vocal cords of a parrot or a dog because it disturbs its owner is immoral, even if it does benefit the relationship by enabling the animal to continue living with its owner). And this question—which invasive actions are justified for the sake of the owner–pet relationship—is the most important question within small animal veterinary ethics. The most reasonable pro-animal answer to this question is utilitarian: examining overall utility for animals.4 Some invasive actions merely benefit the pet (e.g., vaccination). Some benefit the owner and cause pain and possible complications to the pet without substantial benefits to the animal (e.g., tail-docking and ear-cropping). Some involve loss to the pet, which it need not necessarily experience as a loss (spaying, neutering). Given a paternalistic framework, the first kind is unproblematically moral. The second is unproblematically immoral. The moral status of the third kind is complex. Humans would not be spayed and neutered even if such gives them longer lives, and so longevity does not trump the loss of sexual and procreational capacities. On the other hand, conceiving of human–human action solely through paternalistic terms is already immoral. Moreover, unlike pets, the idea that some actions are justified morally since they enable the owner–pet relationship to exist is also foreign to human–human action. Unlike human children, who would grow up and could decide for themselves whether they wish to lose their sexual abilities so as to live longer, pets can never have such autonomy. We make the decision for them. Is it the right decision? I think that it is for four reasons that concern the particular pet’s welfare as well as the welfare of other pets. First, as said, such actions promote the pet’s own longevity. Second, no evidence suggests that the pet conceives of its postoperative state as a loss. Third, many people will not have pets if this meant taking responsibility for many potential offsprings. Fourth, without spaying and neutering, we will have many more abandoned pets that have miserable lives, and spread contagious diseases among their species and others. Invasive actions that benefit the pet are justified through a paternalistic framework or through assuming that the pet–owner relationship is valuable and beneficial for pets. Muting a parrot or a dog (unlike parrots, dogs are routinely muted in some countries), tail-docking or ear-trimming cannot obviously be excused through such means. Euthanazing pets is usually conceptualized as an action on their behalf, and when this is the case, the action is justified. Declawing is problematic: owners that ask for declawing many times will not keep their animals otherwise. Such declawing can then benefit the pet. But sometimes the request for the (painful) procedure stems from owner irresponsibility, not realizing the implication of having a pet of a specific kind. If the person asking for the procedure does so because Kitty destroys her beloved sofa, there is a sense in which she should have foreseen this when she took responsibility for a cat. Unlike spaying or neutering, here Kitty does not gain anything by the procedure. And so, there is reason for a veterinarian not to cooperate with this request. In an ideal world, no owner who cares that much for her sofa will take a cat. The veterinarian ought to urge the owner to withdraw her request. If, however, the owner insists and there is a strong possibility that the cat will be abandoned if the procedure will not be conducted if the veterinarian turns away the customer, it is overall better for the cat to be declawed and so, the veterinarian should perform the procedure. The overall utility of simply outlawing declawing for animals (as is the case in San Francisco, where such legislation seems very close) is thus unclear. For the same utilitarian considerations, maiming animals so as to have them as pets, or actions that violate what they are (wing-trimming in birds, caging birds) have nothing to do with the animal’s own welfare. As far as I can tell, such actions do seem to be a loss to the animal, and they do seem to be experienced as such. Unlike cats, dogs, and horses, birds in the wild lead better lives than caged ones. Caging a bird appears to me to be in the same category of socially isolating a dog or a chimpanzee: a violation of what that animal is. The greater safety that they gain does not justify the losses birds like parrots pay for sharing their lives with humans. The same argument applies to attempts to keep wild animals as pets: most are better off in the wild.
Pets can of course be maltreated, and veterinarians ought not be idealized, as financial incentives sometimes turn them into tools that satisfy any whim an owner may express. Nor do I mean to shortcut the problematic nature of disconnecting animals from members of their own species. Some pets are loners (cats); others learn to treat humans as their pack (dogs). Disconnection, in such cases, does not appear problematic. The situation with regard to simian helpers of handicapped humans is less clear. Pro-animal utopia will probably involve some reform of pet husbandry, training, and medicine. But such reform will not be radical. Pets benefit from leading lives with humans, and the price they pay is small in comparison. Small animal husbandry looks like a reasonable exchange: pets do lose through this relationship, but they get to lead safe and comfortable lives, and they die when they are old or sick. The alternative of a petless world, does not strike me as morally superior or overall better for animals. Here then, is a model of human–animal relationship which, although we call all the shots (saying what seems “reasonable,” “acceptable,” “plausible exchange,” etc.), is morally justified on utilitarian grounds; a model in which the overall good is determined in relation to all the entities concerned, even when it does prescribe invasive actions and curtailing the animal’s freedom.

--Sammy1339 (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what I see:

Vegans charge moral vegetarians with inconsistency: if eating animals isa participation in a wrong practice, consuming eggs and dairy products islikewise wrong because it is a cooperation with systematic exploitation.Vegans say that even the more humane parts of the contemporary dairy andegg industry rely on immoral practices, and that therefore moral vegetarian-ism is too small a step in the right direction. According to vegans, moral veg-etarians have conceded that animals are not means; that human pleasurecannot override animal suffering and death; that some industries ought to bebanned; and that all this carries practical implications as to their own actions.Yet they stop short of a full realization of what speciesist culture involves andwhat living a moral life in such an environment requires. Moral vegans dis-tinguish themselves from moral vegetarians in accepting the practical pre-scriptions of altogether avoiding benefiting from animal exploitation, not justof avoiding benefiting from the killing. Vegans take the killing to be merelyone aspect of the systematic exploitation of animals.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Right, what I produced above is the first section after the introduction. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's "an introduction" but the actual "the first section". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then I typed up the second section, which is located under the big, centered letter I. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm unable to see it from this view. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think I'm trying to trick you, I would suggest you ask at WP:REFD for someone to get you access to the full paper. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that's now what I stated. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 2

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, the problem is that people are arriving with their own views, rather than having read the sources. Here is the issue in a nutshell:

When we oppose human slavery, we don't mean that human beings should be treated nicely. We mean that we should not be allowed to own, buy and sell other human beings. Indeed, when slaves were freed in the US, there were apparently hundreds of thousands of deaths from starvation and disease (see Jim Downs, Sick from Freedom, Oxford University Press). Still, no matter the consequences, the principle remains: we should not be allowed to own each other.

Ethical vegans hold similar views about animals, although with animals the issue is not so simple. Many do require some form of guardianship if they're to live with us, so the arguments (e.g. about pet ownership) are complex, and understanding them fully involves knowing something about theories of property.

But the one thing ethical vegans do agree about is that animals should not be used and traded as commodities. This is according to the sources, not according to whether any editor on this page knows someone who thinks otherwise. If you read the sources, you will see that theme over and over again, both explicit and implicit. It is therefore a good way to sum up the position of ethical vegans in just a few words, before proceeding to explain in more detail.

Dietary vegans do not necessarily hold those beliefs. They may hold them, or they may simply care about their health, or they may have other objections to eating animals. The first sentence makes clear that not all vegans adhere to the "associated philosophy," and the second paragraph unpacks that further. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that people haven't bothered reading the sources. The sources state it's mainly about animal products. Pet ownership is mentioned nowhere. You are trying to ascribe radical veganism to be the definition for all veganism. Dietary vegans are not the same thing as the general majority of vegans described as ethicals who refuse to use any sort of animal products, but neither of these two are the same as radical vegans. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the sources. I've never encountered the distinction you're making between ethical vegans and radical vegans. This article doesn't say anything about pet ownership, and not treating animals as commodities wouldn't necessarily exclude pet ownership, as I said above (please read my previous post). SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say radical vegans, do you mean something like Veganarchism? We don't touch on anything like that here. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You have never? That's silly. There is a clear and broad difference in opposing pet ownership and not wearing leather. The only reason you haven't thought about is because people like Francione are also the ones who are trying to "hijack the movement" and obfuscate the difference. Maybe the problem lies more at the commodity page than here, but regardless the commodity link should be put below than at the very opening sentence as the very definition of veganism. Especially if there is nothing to be changed at the commodity page as is. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and the commodity sentence is obviously nothing but absolute Veganarchism. The commodity article says "companion animals" are commodity and our lead sentence says the ending of commodity status thus the end of companion animalship. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for what you're saying? Of course I know that there are ethical vegans with stronger views than others. But you are saying there is a third category, something different in kind: dietary vegans, ethical vegans and, as you wrote above, "but neither of these two are the same as radical vegans." So if you don't mean vegananarchism, what is it? Or is that what you mean? If so, we don't discuss vegananarchism in this article. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You already did. Veganarchism. They're also called "radical vegans". They are a subsect of ethical vegans, a radical wing. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you said above that they weren't a subset, but a third category. As I said, we have nothing in this article about that philosophy. Referring to the commodity status of animals has nothing to do with that. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, I were being too Spock-like in my presentation. Or maybe it's a linguistic difference. When something's not the same it's not the exact. A subsect isn't the same as the family of the subsects. And stating that all veganism is about ending animal companions is veganarchism. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with veganarchism but I think it's clear the sources we are discussing don't refer to it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: "The commodity article says "companion animals" are commodity and our lead sentence says the ending of commodity status thus the end of companion animalship."

That doesn't follow at all. Treating pets as commodities is, for example, owning pedigree dogs, getting them to breed, stopping certain lines that don't have traits you want, and selling the puppies for high prices, even though the breeding might, and probably will, lead to health issues. In this case, the parents and the puppies are all commodities, priced according to actual and expected traits.

Another way of owning pets is to rescue them. Ethical vegans would oppose the commodity form of ownership, and would support the rescue form. Some ethical vegans might want to ban pet ownership outright one day, if there are ever no pets left to rescue. And some wouldn't want that. We don't discuss that issue here, because it's very complicated. It would make a good daughter article.

That's one reason we don't say ethical vegans oppose the property status of animals. We are more precise than that: it's the commodity status they reject. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence, commodity means the same thing as property, so I don't understand your point. Is the slight context the words are usually used in the difference? At the moment the commodity page simply lists propertyhood of companion animals as commodity. It uses the blue, hyperlinked word property. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The distinction between "commodity" and "property" is not made by all authors, partly because pets are usually not the focus. Smulewicz-Zucker argues that "commodity status" is the correct phrase, focusing on pets as a main example. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So commodity article should be changed to decrease the primariness of companion animals or at least point out the reduced amount of importance and attention? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you could do that. The article is just a stub, so that aspect can be developed. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've removed companion animals from the commodity page for now as it's causing confusion. When there's time I (or someone else) can develop a section about them and explain the different approaches. SarahSV ^(talk) 07:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

How about we add "exploitative type of" to the lead sentence, forming "an associated philosophy that rejects the exploitative type of commodity status of animals"? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion "the exploitative type of commodity status", it seems to give the impression that vegans want free-range eggs or the like. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

What? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Explain why? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

As things stand, if you own an animal, you can buy, sell, use and kill the animal, as you see fit. You're supposed to avoid cruelty, but the definition and enforcement of that varies enormously, and in some countries there is no enforcement (and perhaps no legislation).

Distinctions can nevertheless be drawn between property status and commodity status, as I explained above. If you rescue an old dog from a shelter, you own the dog, but it's unlikely you'll find a way to turn that dog into a commodity (something you could trade, or something that will produce something you could trade). So animal ownership without the animal being treated as a commodity is possible, though commodity status is always present, in some sense, given your right as the owner to transfer ownership (sell the dog).

In addition, there are philosophers who are developing theories of "living property," where a different concept of property might apply to animals, more like guardianship. In short, property status does not equal commodity status, although of course the two are closely linked. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Some people see that as companionship, living together, being together. Even if many in the outside world sees the relationship as "You own that dog," it can be seen by the person as "This dog is my companion and in this world where people see animals as ownable, i have rescued this one dog, and i see it differently." I do see a wide range of beliefs among vegans and others about what "veganism" means, and in the end it's a word that stands for many related by different things. It's a contested word, claimed by people with differing viewpoints. We need to represent this range in the article accurately. SageRad (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: You're right on one level and we actually have good sources for that - see Zamir's paper which I copied a large part of above, and also a couple of the books I cited in my replies to Mr. Magoo. As has been shown in this discussion its a nuanced issue, and I'd like to see a little more about pet ownership in the body of the article. However, all the sources are pretty clear about the basis of veganism as a philosophy, and the sources on pets say that vegans generally don't think they should be commodities - even though they support de facto pet ownership. We have to represent the sources accurately. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Sammy, you were the one edit warring an obvious edit and without explaining why. You state your reason as "I don't know what veganarchism is exactly, but it's got nothing to do with this, and your edit is confusing and is not supported by the sources." If you don't know what veganarchism is, then maybe you shouldn't be editing this article just yet, at least at this level. As it stands, without exploitative it's about veganarchism and not general veganism -- like I wrote. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I have a sneaking suspicion that you're not reading a single word I write. :) SarahSV ^(talk) 07:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You agreed with me so I had no reason to reply to that post. Basically you are saying that general veganism isn't about animal companions. The commodity article is. There thus is a need to differentiate on this end. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see your post above. I can create the differentiation section at the commodity article later if no one else does. I'll probably come back to it way later so don't count on me. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 07:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Magoo and McBarker, the problem that I have pointed out is that our readers will have no way of knowing what the first sentence in the lead means, for several reasons.

Firstly the 'commodity status' bit appears to form part of a definition of veganism as a whole. The excludes a whole section of vegans who do not object to 'commodity status'.

The second problem is that, to a typical reader, 'commodity status' could mean anything from just 'humans can have legal ownership of animals' to 'humans can do whatever they want to animals without regard for their feelings, health or welfare'; covering almost the whole range of human treatment of animals. There has been extensive discussion of that topic here, without any clear description of even what the term is intended by its writers to mean. That discussion, of course, is of no help to readers who come to this article to find out what veganism is.

As an attempt to solve that (unacknowledged) problem a new article, commodity status of animals, was started at just about the same time as this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 3

One should note that Gary L. Francione is very notable in the vegan community/movement, but that his variety of veganism is not the only kind nor even necessarily the dominant kind. I'm seeking sources on his position and standing and general influence. [2] [3] [4] are some non-primary sources that show some of the controversy around his approach. This is to further conversation about the diversity of veganism, in regard to beliefs and practices, for the purpose of making the article as accurate as possible. SageRad (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@SageRad: There was discussion a while ago about rewriting the philosophy section and adding a new "veganism as a social movement" section, which I proposed, but I abandoned that idea due to this page being too much of a battleground. I still think it's a good idea. You're right that Francione is hardly the only voice, and that his opinion doesn't represent everyone, or even a majority. I don't particularly care for the "three great men" narrative of the Philosophy section, and think this could be fixed. This really doesn't affect the lede though, since, as the many sources I cited about show, even his ideological opposites broadly agree on ending commercial use of animals - that is a defining feature of ethical veganism. It's also not quite accurate to say that ethical veganism is just a particular sect of veganism - veganism was founded on these principles, and most vegans adhere to them in some form.

Maybe a good analogy is this: Judaism is both an ethnicity and a religion. Personally, I'm ethnically Jewish, and even observe some of the holidays, but I don't believe in God. So I'm analogous to the "dietary vegans" here. Other Jews have their own complex spiritual views which depart from mainstream Judaism. However, Judaism still needs to be defined as both an ethnicity and a monotheistic religion; saying it is this doesn't imply that all Jews believe the same thing. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think it would be useful to address veganism as a social movement. That seems like it would be a useful angle with which to describe veganism. I find many sources upon initial searching, such as Veganism as a Cultural Movement: A Relational Approach in Social Movement Studies: Journal of Social, Cultural and Political Protest. SageRad (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's one of the best papers. I started a sandbox with this in mind a long time ago; maybe I'll get back to it when the chaos subsides. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Break 4

I just added definitions from 4 mainstream vegan websites, none of which mention commodity status. These were the first results in google by the way, so there probably are plenty I missed. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead should obviously only say "rejects exploitation of animals" instead of "commodity of animals". --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It could have "opposes" instead of "rejects" as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

"Exploitation" versus "commodity status"

What are people's views on what "exploitation" means in this context? It's a term that's been coming up a lot. A dictionary definition is use or utilization, especially for profit. When vegans say they oppose "exploitation of animals", is this substantively different from saying that they oppose commercial use of animals? Or equivalently, that they oppose the state of affairs in which animals are commodities? I've been operating under the impression that we use the wording "commodity status" for two reasons: (1) it lacks the polemical connotations of "exploitation", and therefore might be perceived as more neutral, and (2) it is a little less vague, as "exploitation" applied to a living being can also suggest abuse - using "exploitation" might give readers the false impression that veganism was based in a desire for free range eggs and so on, where the animals are treated "fairly" in some sense. Is this assessment wrong? --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguing about Francione

Because mainstream, casual ethical veganism does not oppose the commodity status. Francione is a veganarchist. In fact if you oppose the commodity status, then you pretty much are a veganarchist. Are all vegans veganarchists? Obviously not. But according to our current lead they are. If we were to change it to exploitation, then it goes with pretty much all sources as the opposition to animal products is from the stance that it harms animals and that's why there are so many vegans who drink milk. In addition, commodity is very vague. We've been over how the current article for it needs heavy work. Exploitation to me is less vague. It means "selfish utilization". If say you were to breed dogs but you cared about them, then it would be harder to call it exploitation. But if you didn't and you only did it for money, then it's obviously selfish utilization. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh and maybe the suggestion of "rejects" exploitation wasn't optimal. I didn't think as far as to change the complete sentence before but the rejects could be changed to "opposes" or "fights" (that one's probably too much). In addition we could add some "and" next to it about opposition to harm or physical harm as well. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what makes you think Francione is a veganarchist. I have never seen him described as such in the literature, or indeed anywhere else. A search around RS finds only the opposite claim: Francione’s abolitionist approach is one of the factions that have recently gained ground in Istanbul. Another ideological faction that enjoys considerable support in Istanbul is the anarchist-based philosophy of veganarchism. [5]. He certainly doesn't advocate overthrowing the state, as anarchists do. FourViolas (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're confused because veganarchists oppose capitalism in general, and think nothing should be traded as a commodity (including animals). Most vegans, including Francione, disagree in general, but do oppose commodity status for animals because they think it's incompatible with treating them however they think we should treat animals. This is demonstrated by the fact that their philosophies forbid them from buying animal products. FourViolas (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, that's not what the article or the literature for them states. They view the capitalistic system as harmful to animals; because of the commodity status and making money off animals, but they are mostly about abolition and overthrow of the system that enables it. If you go look at veganarchist websites, they are pretty much only about that. You're lucky to find something about capitalism (you need to specially search for that). Another term for veganarchists is radical vegans like their article states. The article also states after that "however, not all who believe in the terms perceive them to be veganarchy", referring to you here obviously. Veganarchism is the closest thing we have to an article about radical vegans.

And the fact that Francione's faction is near kindred with veganarchists in Istanbul says a lot. To me they see the same thing but with a different name. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Your OR and personal opinion notwithstanding, the only RS I can find using the words "Francione" and "veganarchism/ist" in the same paragraph explicitly says that he is not one of them. This book chapter (Elise 2013), criticizing Francione for not being opposed to capitalism, makes it even clearer: {{quotation|"Francione’s solution to abolishing animal exploitation is to abolish the property status of animals. This is not only an insufficient strategy, but it also fails to account for the economic implications of private property and the destructive nature of the capitalist mode of production. In addition to abolishing the property status of animals, the other most effective means of achieving animal liberation is abolition of private property itself. This means the abolition of capitalism."

This further demonstrates that opposing the property status or commodity status of animals does not imply being a veganarchist. WP:BURDEN is on you to support this claim, preferably not by citing a problematic WP article. FourViolas (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

That's because few to no reliable sources even use the term. If you do a scholarly search you get a few pages and even then they're just mentions of the term on some back page. And Francione is not stated not to be opposed to capitalism. In fact Francione has stated capitalism to be problematic. But Francione distances himself from that conversation because let's say there was a communistic system but animals were still property, then it would make no difference. That's why he doesn't oppose capitalism. But he still exhibits very anarchistic opinions about both capitalism and communism and any sort of system.

A problematic WP article? What is obvious that Wikipedia lacks a separate article for radical veganism. I wrote that veganarchism is the closest thing we have to that. In fact Animal rights would be the closest thing. Veganism is nigh only about the products, neat and tidy. For the rest go to animal rights. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate this question, Sammy1339. I think "exploitation" is a very fitting word that carries a similar connotation to "commodification" -- for both imply that the suffering and the rights or will of the object is undermined for the profit of a dominating party. I think this is a large part of the definition of "veganism" in most people's minds and as it's socially understood by vegans and non-vegans. As for what you call "polemical connotations", i think this is sort of what Martin Hogbin's been trying to say for a long time now, as well. I think that stating the phrase in Wikivoice may endorse it as a real thing, which we may want to do, but if not then it could be phrased as "what many see as... (exploitation (or) commodification)" to put it into a frame and not directly as Wikivoice. SageRad (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion for lead:

Veganism is both the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that opposes the exploitation and harming of animals. A follower of veganism is known as a vegan.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

If people like this then the above RfC can be solved and at least I'll rescind my vote around. This version seems to fit most people's demands. If this is agreed then I'll request closure for the RfC on the admin's noticeboard myself. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:33, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems vague and I don't think most readers will understand what "exploitation" means in this context. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

But do you think they understand even a little bit of what "commodity status" means? That's the point. No, that's just one of the points. Not even people here understand what it exactly means, let alone a casual reader. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the above proposal is an improvement, and we should implement it. Although 'exploitation' is better than 'commodity status', I think it still is polemical. But maybe that is unavoidable?? TonyClarke (talk) 09:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about ...either oppose exploitation or commodification of animals., that would include both moderate and radical viewpoints. Additionally, it doesn't imply some sort of legal status which I'm not sure is the correct terminology? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the advantage of "commodity status" to describe the philosophy is that it is directly, logically connected to the practice of abstaining from purchasing animal products. Necessarily, somebody who buys leather is okay with buying and selling pigs and cows (a commodity is an object of trade), and someone who doesn't, isn't.

However, "opposes exploitation" is almost as good a criterion, and may be more familiar to readers who have heard about Sexual exploitation of children or Exploitation of women in mass media. Such readers would understand "exploitation" to mean something like "being used for a purpose to which they would not consent", which meshes at least with Kantian animal-rights philosophies. That said, Kantians are a minority of pro-vegan philosophers, and there was consensus above (including from Martin) that the consensus of vegan philosophers was the right place to look for a definition of vegan philosophy. FourViolas (talk) 14:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The above wording is absolutely unacceptable, for reasons which might not be obvious to vegans. Vegans often erroneously equate their particular practices with non-harm to animals, which is disputed by other groups; for example Jains do not eat potatoes, onions, or garlic because animals might be harmed when these are harvested, but vegans have no such restrictions. There is a notable argument by Davis to the effect that a diet based on grains kills more animals than one based on grass-fed beef - the argument is wrong in multiple respects and has been refuted, but became something of a popular myth. Nevertheless it didn't convince vegans to eat grass-fed beef. Just like (as SlimVirgin notes above) abolitionists who oppose slavery even if it means slaves will starve, vegans, by their words and actions, oppose commercial use of animals.

The problem with this wording, with the vague "exploitation" and non-harm language, is illustrated by the severe misunderstanding its proposer has: he thinks vegans may drink milk, as he states in his first reply to me in this section. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I wrote, some vegans do drink milk which is produced in safe and hospitable, "organic" dairy farms. The reason most vegans don't is because most dairy farms don't treat the cows well. That is why our lead clarifies "especially ones gained from harming the animal".

And also, you seem to oppose any change whatsoever. I think it would be safe to say that you are on the extreme end here and the coming compromise will obviously not satisfy you but will satisfy a hefty amount of people other than you. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 01:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is simply not true according to any reliable, scholarly definition of veganism. You don't have to take my word for it: look at the article, and these encyclopedia definitions. People who don't eat meat but drink milk they consider to have been ethically produced are called "ethical lacto-vegetarians". FourViolas (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Because there didn't use to exist any sort of a concept of a certified safe, organic dairy farm. And "ethical lacto-vegetarian" is to "ethical vegan" as "dietary vegan" is to "vegetarian". I don't think there's a difference. Your definitions also specify that it's about ending harm and exploitation. That's precisely it.

This is the first definition you gave above:

Veganism is a practical philosophy oriented toward living without directly or indirectly harming or exploiting animals, and actively seeking to end that harm and exploitation where it exists. Veganism is most commonly associated with eschewing foods of animal origin.

--Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

And now it's quiet here. Neither cares to explain how their tag team edit warring is sourced when FourViolas even provided and pointed a source to the contrary. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Is there some discussion on some other forum that I'm supposed to know about? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)See the note on the ref for that statement. One of the quotes includes entertainment animals. It should be "use of animals" not "use of animal products". --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But that is entertainment, not all use. If you want to specify entertainment, then do so. There is no source for "all use". We've even been through this and agreed that veganism is not opposed to pet ownership. SlimVirgin agreed on that... --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I would support this wording because it is closer to what is used by various vegan organisations. The UK Vegan Society, where veganism originated uses:

Veganism is a way of living which seeks to exclude, as far as is possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.[6]

this wording dates back to when the society became a charity in 1979.

The American Vegan Society has

American Vegan Society is a nonprofit organization that promotes, supports, and explores a compassionate, healthful, and sustainable lifestyle. The diet is entirely plant-sourced, varied and abundant. For ethical, health, environmental, and other reasons we reject all animal products in food, clothing, and commodities. We refuse to exploit animals for sport, entertainment, and experimentation. ...[7]

The Movement for Compassionate Living has

A way of life that is free of the exploitation and slaughter of sentient beings, that is possible for all the world's people and that is sustainable within the resources of the planet.[8]

Other vegan groups also use the word exploitation somewhere in their aims. Vegfam[9] Vegan Organic Network [10].

If you want the definitive definition of veganism you have to look to the groups which define it. Especially the Vegan Society, not some parts of the academic literature who take this definition and intellectualize it.--Salix alba (talk): 02:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm sorry, Mr. Magoo and McBarker, I don't know what your analogy is supposed to mean: an ethical lacto-vegetarian is somebody who eats no meat but drinks milk for ethical reasons, an ethical vegan is someone who uses no animal products for ethical reasons, a dietary vegan is someone who eats no animal products for health reasons, and a vegetarian is someone who eats no meat.

As for your attempts to add that vegans "especially [oppose animal products] gained from harming the animal"; you might argue that that is a consequence of the above definition, but the other encyclopedias specify

"avoid all animal products including dairy",

"avoiding all meat products as well as foods from animal sources",

"refuse to use all animal products", and

"also means excluding fish, dairy produce, or eggs."

Then there are all the quotes from the sources in the article supporting that sentence, which do not mention any distinction between more or less "unethical" animal products. It seems to me that WP:WEIGHT is clear unless you have a dozen encyclopedias up your sleeve. I'm sorry you feel we're tag-teaming you. FourViolas (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I didn't state that ONLY those from harming the animals. I stated especially. I mean in addition to milk you have wool. The same reasons of unethical treatment apply there. But sheep need to be sheared or they will die. There are numerous examples of sheep that have escaped and have had their woolly fur grown to a behemoth size, not suitable for living obviously if you'll look at some pictures of these. If you shear a sheep you get the wool. In that case it would be ethical to wear it, would it not? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Magoo and McBarker: Why are you changing the ref styles now? Your changes introduced a visible typo if you mouse over one of the references in the infobox. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. It pains my eyes to see an untemplated reference when it takes literally a minute to change it when everything needed is already there. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Salix alba: Regarding the issue of substance here, there is absolutely no way we can use the "exploitation" wording, even though vegans might prefer this. It's both vague, as illustrated by Mr. Magoo's confusion concerning milk, and non-neutral, because of the connotations alluded to by 4V. It does not clearly express what vegans oppose, except to vegan ears. This is why we use secondary source definitions.

What vegans oppose, per RS, is the commercial use of animals, plus their deliberate killing for human purposes such as entertainment or food. Both of these are encapsulated by commodity status of animals, which is a neutral and well-defined term, unlike "animal exploitation", which is neither.

Also, not that it matters much, the American Vegan Society's "we reject all animal products in food, clothing, and commodities. We refuse to exploit animals for sport, entertainment, and experimentation" pretty much encapsulates rejection of animals' commodity status. We just can't use this kind of expansive rhetoric. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"even though vegans might prefer this" That says everything about your argument. After that you argue it's vague. Again, it's much less vague than "commodity status", which is even more connotated than exploitation. Again, commodity status is worse on both counts. Vegans are not sourced to oppose commercial use of animals. The only source stating so at the moment is Francione who at other instance defined veganism as rejection of animal products and said commodity status is on the periphery of the debate. And Vegan Society's definition would be much better fit with the exploitation term because they do not refer to commodity status but being chopped and turned into clothing and similar commodities. You came up with any sort of a link there from the top of your head. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Sammy, per the essays WP:Academic bias and WP:MAINSTREAM. Using vegan groups' language is an attractively simple option, but could easily be accused of being partisan or WP:Soapboxy. FourViolas (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

But all the academics you site are radical vegans. And commodity status is more partisan than exploitation. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for either of those statements? FourViolas (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll make a new section for that. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)