Talk:List of vegans/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet,

The principal criterion for appearing on this list is given in the statement above, ' All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet'. It is not a list of people who claim to be on a vegan diet, or would like to be on one. In my opinion if we start to list near-vegans or wannabe vegans the list becomes useless. In accordance with normal WP policy we also require an independent reliable source confirming that the subject is, in fact, a vegan.

Further to this there is also the consensus that an entry has an English WP page. This provides an independent and easily verified confirmation of notability. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It is not our job to decide who is and who isn't really a vegan- Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not "truth". If someone self-identifies as a vegan and a reliable source is happy to call them a vegan, short of another reliable source specifically saying that they aren't a vegan, they should be included. Part of the reason we can't "police" the list and remove people who we decide aren't vegans is that it could very quickly get silly. Are people who drive cars with tires possibly containing animal products non-vegan? How about people who work for organisations which sell or promote animal products? J Milburn (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that is is not our job to make private enquiries into subjects' veganism, but if we have a good quality source saying that a subject eats meat or fish, or something else that is clearly totally against the spirit of veganism, we should count it as a source saying that they are not vegan. Less clear cut issues, like maybe they subject once wore a leather belt, should be treated with more caution. My concern is only the integrity of WP. If a person is listed here, we should be confident that they currently are, according to reliable sources and the definitions in this encyclopedia, vegan.

Like Betty, I do have concerns over the use of just pro-vegan sources, such as PETA, in that they may have a tendency promote their cause by trying to show how many of the rich and famous are vegan. We seem to have accepted that PETA a reliable source but, if we find a contradictory source, I think we must give greater weight to non-partisan sources.

I also have concerns over the use of social media as sources. They must count as self-published primary sources at best. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you about questionable sources- but that's a side point. Take Billybob Thornton, who I have added to the page, and both you and Betty have removed. Thornton calls himself vegan, and I can cite several decent sources referring to him as a vegan. You are literally saying that we should ignore Thornton's own self-identity and how he's referred to in reliable sources just because he doesn't meet (or meat, hurr hurr hurr) your preferred definition of veganism. We are all (I'm assuming now that you're a vegan) "imperfect" vegans in some sense- short of living in a tree and drinking rainwater, we're always going to be using something animal derived. Some of us are better at cutting things out than others; I certainly wouldn't eat meat at a barbecue, but then I'm sure there will be areas of my life in which I'm "less vegan" than Thornton. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think self-identification is a large part of the criteria, but neither Billy Bob Thornton or stic.man actually identify as vegan if you read their comments carefully. Thornton is in fact clarifying that he is not vegan when he stays in Texas: "I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here". At best he's a "part-time" vegan, if there is such a thing. Stic.man on the other hand doesn't even claim to be vegan; what he actually does say is this: "I’m basically a vegan but I have added certain fish to my diet on occasion." i.e. if he identified solely as vegan he wouldn't be qualifying his diet as "basically vegan", he would be calling it "vegan". This has nothing to do with "policing", but rather accurately reflecting what these people actually say about their diets. Vegan pressure groups such as Peta will add famous people to their lists simply because they are preoccupied with pushing an agenda rather than accurately reflecting facts, so in that respect Peta isn't good enough for me if the person in question is saying something else; Wikipedia is obliged to be neutral in these matters. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Betty here. It is not a question of verifiability vs truth to say that Billybob Thornton is not a vegan. He states that he regularly eats meat, that means that, by any definition of the term, he is not a vegan. There is no attempt to police the term or apply it particularly strictly here. As I said above, if he once wore a leather belt or put some milk in his tea that might be a different thing, but publicly stating that you regularly eat meat means quite simply that you are not a vegan.

Similarly with Stic.man, 'basically vegan' is not vegan. There is no attempt to judge him on what he does, that is certainly not our purpose, we are just trying to determine whether, according to what we can find in reliable sources, he fits into a certain fairly well-defined category, and he does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Stic.man- yeah, I'm convinced. "[B]asically vegan" is not vegan. I'd never heard of him before this weekend, and was only going off the PETA source. However, I think you're overanalysing Thornton's comments. "I'm vegan these days" is pretty unambiguous. If you have a source which says "Billy Bob Thornton is not a vegan" we can talk- until then, this is all just hot air. Again, I can provide three solid sources which say he is a vegan- it's perfectly reasonable to say he's a vegan who occasionally does things that are non-vegan. J Milburn (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

We could even throw in a clarificatory footnote if you think it would help, but I do feel that Thornton belongs on the list. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Please explain how you can be a vegan and eat meat. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You have already said that you accept that a vegan may occasionally wear leather or drink milk, so I don't think you really have a leg to stand on. In any case, this is not the place for this discussion. Now, do you have sources or a policy to cite, or is this all just hot air? J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Look again at the Thornton interview. The article says that he is a vegan, but he "breaks" his veganism sometimes (to use a food analogy, I am on a diet even if I "break" the diet and gorge occasionally). Thornton doesn't plan to do this; when he eats meat, he "break[s] down". To be clear (but this is a side point) I don't believe that it's useful for people who eat meat to call themselves vegan; much better would be saying that they are aiming towards veganism, or are a flexitarian or something like that. I also don't think anyone, whether they self-identify as vegan or not, should be eating meat. But, right now, that's not important. What's important, here and now, is what the sources say. If he calls himself vegan, and reliable sources call him vegan, it is not our job to say that he isn't, whatever our own personal views. J Milburn (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What are the sources which say he is a vegan? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

A quick Google Search threw up People (and MSN picked up the same quote), PETA, Dallas Observer, ABC News and this book. It's not exactly under reported. I suspect there will be others out there. J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources that I can see that say that he is a vegan. The sources you have quoted say that he says that he is a vegan but that he regularly eats meat.

That is not a minor quibble it is a simple contradiction in terms. At the top of this list it says 'All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet', that is not a correct statement about Billybob; he does not adhere to a vegan diet. The fact that he claims to be a vegan does not alter this fact. Self-identification is relevant but it does override everything else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One potential solution would be to have a "disputed vegans" section like we do at List of vegetarians where we can clarify Billy Bob Thornton's stance. That way readers will realize the case isn't clear cut and can draw their own conclusions. The Billy Bob Thornton case is a bit different to the stic.man or Bill Cinton cases, where they occasionally supplement their "vegan" diet with fish; when Billy Bob Thornton practises his vegan diet he is to all intents and purposes a practising vegan, but we can't just ignore the fact he likes to have "time out". Betty Logan (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. I am not sure that 'disputed' is quite the right word but I cannot think of a better one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC) On second thought, I am not sure what purpose such a list would serve, and it might eventually lead to the need for yet another list of 'nearly vegans' or 'probably not vegans'. Let us keep it simple, either you adhere to a vegan diet or you do not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

And who determines whether people "adhere to a vegan diet or ... do not"? You? (To reiterate, I would not object to Thornton being included in the list with a footnote. Betty, I'm glad you see that there is a difference between the Clinton case and the Thornton case- I agree.) J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources decide, and in this case they clearly state that Thornton does not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

If this wasn't already silly, it is now. You have not provided a single source which says something like "Thornton is not a vegan". You have repeatedly asserted that he does not meet your particular definition of veganism (which, as it allows leather-wearing and milk-drinking, is a ridiculous definition of veganism anyway...) and claim that because you don't think he's a vegan, he shouldn't be on the list. You're welcome to go and create your own list on your blog, but this list is not based on your inclusion criteria- it's based on what the sources say, and the sources say he's a vegan (even if he might lapse sometimes). J Milburn (talk) 08:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

According to the quoted source, he clearly does not, 'adhere to a vegan diet', which is the stated criterion for inclusion in the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Do people who converted to veganism not "adhere to a vegan diet" because they once ate things that weren't vegan? People lapse. It happens. You've already accepted that a vegan might sometimes lapse and have milk in their tea or wear leather, so I don't really understand what the difference is. J Milburn (talk) 08:32, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No, people do not adhere to a vegan diet because they regularly eat meat.

I am not trying to make any point about what veganism is or should be and I am not trying to make a point about the subject's veganism. It is much simpler that that; the list is of those people who (currently) adhere to a vegan diet and someone who, according to their own comment in a reliable source, regularly eats meat does not belong on this particular list. The subject may be more committed to many of the principles of veganism than others who are on the list but that is irrelevant. Some people on the list may also regularly break their vegan diet but unless we have a source telling us this they remain on the list.

In order to keep things simple and easily verified, the list includes only those who (actually and currently according to a reliable source) adhere to a vegan diet. Thornton does not, according to reliable sources, do that, so he does not belong on the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The reliable sources do say that he is a vegan. They also say that he sometimes lapses, but this doesn't change the fact that they say he's a vegan. What's difficult about this? J Milburn (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing difficult but what is wrong with that is that there are different definitions of vegan, as discussed on this page. Thornton may well be a vegan by some definitions but not by the one that we use here. To make things simple and easily verifiable we have defined 'vegan' for the purposes of this list as 'those who adhere to a vegan diet'.

Does anyone else have a view on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we're going to need a formal RfC. Hopefully, we can work out a neutrally-worded question which nonetheless identifies the issue and get some outside opinions. Hopefully, we could both agree to abide by the outcome of the RfC? J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

There are at least two other editors who have posted fairly recently. Let us first see what they say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It's an unusual case. I wouldn't class him among those vegans who "lapse" because these are people who do not intend to eat non-vegan products but sometimes give in to temptation. Thornton on the other hand follows a vegan diet except when he stays in Texas, where he fully intends to not follow a vegan diet. I suppose if he's not in Texas at the moment he's a fully practising vegan and there may well be other people on this list who consume a meat product before Billy Bob next drops in at Texas. On that basis I am leaning towards including him in some way on the list, although I think the manner of his inclusion should clearly indicate to the reader that he is unorthodox in his adoption of the diet. I have my doubts that an RFC would provide a clear outcome either way: I suspect many editors would be split on the issue and would probably back the option of including him but making the nature of his veganism clear. We can go to an RFC and let that play out, but I think it would be more productive to focus on a way to incorporate him into the list in a way that is acceptable to all of us. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Betty: I think that's a way of reading the source, but Thornton does say "every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here", so I don't think it's as deliberate as you make out. In any case, I have no objection to including Thornton with a footnote clarifying the fact he admits to eating meat while in Texas, especially if that's going to be a solution we're all happy with. J Milburn (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Betty, we have just got this list into some sort of order and one thing that helped with that is keeping it simple, for example no blue link no entry, simple, everyone can understand it and anyone can check it. Because veganism can be a complex subject and deciding who is a 'real vegan' is going to lead to endless arguments, we agreed on a simple criterion for inclusion; it is a list of people who adhere do a vegan diet. The advantage of this is again that it is simple, either a person does or they do not. Once we start to include people who wish they were vegan or support the vegan cause or are vegan most of the time every entry is going to be an endless series of arguments.

To put my cards on the table I am not a vegan and I have no strong feelings on the subject. I do not know who Thornton is or what he does and I do not care. I do not even care who is listed here provided that they meet the agreed criteria for inclusion. Once we start having exceptions, workarounds or we accept arguments that someone who regularly eats meat somehow adheres to a vegan diet the article will start to lose its focus and credibility.

Thornton may may be the most committed person on the Earth to vegan principles and he may bitterly regret that he eats meat when he is in Texas and consider it a terrible lapse of his commitment. He may be fully deserving of a place in the vegan hall of fame or of a medal for promoting veganism worldwide but he does not adhere to a vegan diet and should therefore not be listed here. It is as simple as that.

Perhaps J Milburn could give us his reasons for wanting Thornton listed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Because I feel we need to go with what the sources say, as per WP:RS and WP:OR. It is not our place to judge against our own preferred definition. The sources say that he is a vegan, which entails that he adheres to a vegan diet (as that's basically the most minimal definition of "vegan" out there), even if he may sometimes lapse. Saying we can't include him because he's not vegan "enough" when the sources say he's a vegan is just straight up OR. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is our place to judge against our stated criterion, based on what sources say. I think you are missing the point, if we had a list of people over 6 feet high and a person was 5 foot 11 1/2 but called himself the six foot wonder and everyone thought he was tall and he was known in some circles as a tall person, he would still not go in the list. No one has a right to be on this list; it is just a list of 'those who adhere to a vegan diet'. The source says that he describes himself as a vegan but that he does not adhere to a vegan diet. If the list were described as 'people who call themselves vegan' the he would be included. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

And I think you're missing the point. The sources say that he does adhere to a vegan diet, but that he occasionally lapses. You're saying "No, those sources are wrong, he's not someone with a vegan diet who sometimes lapses into a non-vegan diet, he's just not a vegan." That's the kind of judgement I object to. If we were talking about someone who was referred to as a vegan by mistake - perhaps a confused journo referred to a dairy-free diet containing meat and eggs as a "vegan" diet - this would be different. But what you're asking us to do is go against what the sources say. If you want to run with the 6 foot analogy, you're saying we shouldn't include someone who the sources say is over 6 foot because you know he sometimes walks with a hunch, despite the fact he's mostly beaten it out of himself. (Or, even worse, sometimes walks with a hunch when he visits a particular place, which he does maybe once a year.) J Milburn (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we have both said all we have to say on this. Betty seems undecided on the issue. Perhaps Andy might like to comment.

Could we agree on this though. That we should have simple, clear, and easily verified criteria for inclusion in this list and that, whatever they are, we state them at the top of the list. We should then stick rigidly to them; no ifs buts or nearlies (or is it nearlys?). Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Above, I suggested an RfC- if we can agree on a neutrally-worded question, we could both agree to be bound by the outcome of the RfC (I'd be happy enough with a straw poll, to be quite honest). Perhaps you'd be open to that, now? J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not against a straw poll or an RfC but it would be good if we could agree on a principle first. Do you agree that we should have simple, clear, and easily verified criteria for inclusion in this list and that, whatever they are, we should state them at the top of the list. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I do, and it already does: we include everyone who is at least a dietary vegan (even if they do not otherwise live as a vegan), whether they are a dietary vegan for ethical, religious, health or whatever other reason. What's at stake here is whether someone who occasionally lapses but otherwise meets the definition can be included. We both think so - you have already said that you support the inclusion of someone who occasionally drinks milk - but we disagree about the particular case of Thornton. J Milburn (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, we agree about some things then. I fully understand that our disagreement is about whether Thornton meets the stated requirement.

Your second statement shows exactly what I am worried about though. I did not say that I would , 'support the inclusion of someone who occasionally drinks milk'. My actual words were, 'if he once wore a leather belt or put some milk in his tea that might be a different thing'. That is why I think we must apply the criteria strictly. Once we let in someone who occasionally eats meat we run into the argument of how often is 'occasionally'. Once a year/month/week day?

It has already started (see below). Soon I will be able to add myself to the list as I have undoubtedly unwittingly adhered to a vegan diet for some period of time in my life. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, so long as we ask the simple question of whether Thornton meets the currently stated criteria, I would be happy to go with an RfC. I think we should ask for yes/no answers only. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed RfC wording

Editors here agree that one of the criteria for inclusion in this list should be, as stated at the top of the article, 'All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet'.

Based on the words reported in an interview with the subject, should this person be included in the list? This should be a very simple RfC which anyone should be able to respond to. Just a yes or no answer is required (with reasons if you wish).

[Link to sources on the talk page]

Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed wording, as I think it fails to identify our actual disagreement. How about this: J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This list consists of people who "are understood to adhere to a vegan diet". Billy Bob Thornton self-identifies as a vegan, and reliable sources refer to him as a vegan, but, in an interview, he admits to sometimes eating meat.

Interviewer: Are there certain things you have to do when you come to town, things that you miss when you're away?

Thornton: I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here.

Interviewer: You need your BBQ?

Thornton: Yeah, every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here.

Should Thornton be included on this list?

I do not see any reason to say, 'Billy Bob Thornton self-identifies as a vegan, and reliable sources refer to him as a vegan, but, in an interview, he admits to sometimes eating meat'. The only source we have is the interview, which I am happy to quote just as you have done above but we should not lead people with statements like, ' self-identifies as a vegan'. Let us give the only source we have and just ask yes or no. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. How about this: J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This list consists of people who "are understood to adhere to a vegan diet", but whether Billy Bob Thornton should be included is contested. The disagreement is based upon the following interview [with a link]:

Interviewer: Are there certain things you have to do when you come to town, things that you miss when you're away?

Thornton: I'm a vegan these days, so one thing I do differently when I'm in Texas is I'll usually eat some meat when I'm here.

Interviewer: You need your BBQ?

Thornton: Yeah, every now and then I have to break down and have some when I'm down here.

Should Thornton be included on this list?

That is fine with me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

On the actual RfC page we should not put the text ofthe interview because that is not the place for sources, evidence, or arguments. There we should just state refer to 'an interview'. Also, I suggest that we say that it is a simple and easily understood question for which we would like a yes/no response, with reasons if wished. That may help us get a good response from a wide audience. Some RfC can look rather dull, complex, and technical and generally get a poor response.

I also suggest that we limit our own initial contributions to the RfC three or four lines stating our case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You don't think an RfC is a "place for sources, evidence, or arguments"? The text of the interview has to be there. It's precisely that text which we're arguing about, is it not? (In terms of my contribution to the RfC, I was just going to post the question and state that I feel Thornton does belong on the list. Nothing at all extensive.) J Milburn (talk) 09:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the page where the RfC is listed. The discussion will take place here where, of course, we must have the interview. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure, agreed. Should I go ahead and start this below? J Milburn (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, go ahead. You need to follow the correct procedure as listed on one of the RfC pages. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues

Also, I think there are potential BLP problems with saying that someone's veganism is "disputed". I think we'd need a good source saying that it's "disputed", not simply a source which says they have done something non-vegan. (And, of course, that opens up problems with what constitutes doing something "non-vegan". I've heard people say that shopping at Tesco, having children or donating to the wrong charity is "non-vegan".) J Milburn (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there's a potential BLP problem in using such a trivial characteristic as one's diet in a categorization scheme. If the list consisted only of people that were notable for being vegan, that would be one thing. Diet is generally a trivial characteristic, and that's what leads to the sourcing problems: a trivial characteristic is rarely supported by quality sources.—Kww(talk) 18:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Veganism is central to the identity of many people; it's hardly like a list of people who have gluten-free diets, or a list of people who are allergic to nuts. If you are concerned about a particular entry being badly supported, we can discuss that, but I think that a general claim that "there's a potential BLP problem in using such a trivial characteristic as one's diet in a categorization scheme" is more than a little dismissive. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

A list of people to whom veganism is a central aspect of their identity wouldn't bother me in the slightest. This isn't such a list.—Kww(talk) 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In principle, I recognise the distinction- I'm just not sure how we would go determining whether that was the case with regards to any given entry. J Milburn (talk) 08:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Bill Clinton back on the list

According to the Vegan Society veganism is "...a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

"seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable"; guess somebody who has been an omnivore for more than 60 years and then becomes a vegan, but once a week still eats some fish and cheese, also because one of his two doctors prescribed that, comes up to the definition of a vegan, as he "seeks to" and does "as far as possible". 82.169.109.213 (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

At the top if this list it is made clear that the list consists of people who adhere to a vegan diet. That is done because it is a clear and factual criterion that can be verified. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously have a different understanding of "as far as possible" as most people. Clinton still retains control of his diet i.e. he is not in coma in hospital with no choice over what is put into his drip. He retains the choice to follow a vegan diet or to not to. In this case he is clearly complementing a plant-based diet with animal products and just calling his diet "vegan". Betty Logan (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Especcially when somebody has been an omnivore for that long, it can be very wise, if not necessary, not to stop eating the kind of food the body is used to abruptly. Graduality can be much better in this context and that can very well go on for years. So once a week still some fish and cheese seems not to much deviation of the rule for a relatively new vegan of that age.

Of course theoretically the possibility is there to ignore the doctor's prescription, but that might be less in the interest of veganism and so vegan, than a slight (say 5%) deviation of the principle, as it could bring serious health risks and so the risk that the relevant person would become ill or worse so that he wouldn't be able any more to promote veganism like he does now (because of its benefits in the fields of environment and the costs of national healthcare).

Most likely there are hardly any vegans, that (can) observe the vegan principle fully. They all are forced to a certain deviation by circumstances; but that doesn't make them to non-vegans; otherwise there really wouldn't be more than a handfull, or maybe even none. 82.169.109.213 (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

There are many definitions of what it means to be a vegan but this list includes, as it says at the top of the list, 'those who are believed to adhere to a vegan diet'. Bill Clinton does not adhere to a vegan diet so he does not go in the list, regardless of whatever vegan principle he holds. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I dare to pose here that not one of those who are mentioned in this list eat 100% vegan. Don't they for instance really never eat a peace of cake (in which as good as always eggs and/or butter are/is applied)? Don't they ever eat potatoes that have been fried in animal fat any more? Do they really all eat no bread any more, in which as good as always eggs and/or butter are/is applied? Do they really always drink their coffee without coffee-creme? And what about margarine and all those other seemingly vegan kinds of all day foodstuff (like even soup), that according to the label do contain whey powder and/or other (dry) milk components? Undoubtedly even when they conciously try to also avoid this kind of in themselves non-animal kinds of all day food, they repeatedly are in situations, in which they have no choise and so have to eat things like that for the simple reason that more vegan alternatives are not available there and then, whereas they have to eat something, or don't want to act difficult. This being so, the question is what the avarage percentage is in which famous persons who in principle adhere to a vegan diet (have to) deviate fom this principle in practise. Presumably this percentage is at least 10, which is more than just eating some fish and cheese once a week. So to avoid removing all the names from this list it might be preferable to add a sentence like the following one to the text ahead of the list:

(All the people on this list are understood to adhere to a vegan diet, although their veganism may extend beyond just a dietary commitment.) It must be noted by the way that this adherence is a principal one, so that the fact that most if not all in practise most likely are forced by circumstances to deviate from the vegan principle to a certain extend, doesn't prejudice their being a vegan.
- 82.169.46.143 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• @82.169.46.143: You're wrong. I've eaten vegan for decades. I have travelled with vegans, in places (e.g. Montana, Southerh Utah, Italy) where it's hard to impossible to find vegan food on menus. I "picnic" a lot, but have also found places willing to cook me some simple vegan food. So, the people on the list will do the same.
• This is Wikipedia. As editors, we include content based on sources, not personal opinion. People should be on this list if a reliable source(s) can be found and cited, saying they meet the list's criteria. Often these sources can be found in the person's Wikipedia's biography article. An editor reads the source to verify that it backs up the vegan claim, then just cut-n-paste the citation to this article.
• Bill Clinton does not meet the criteria of this list.

— Lentower (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

People like Bill Clinton belong on a list of people who claim they are vegan, but also eat non-vegan food, or a list of people who mostly eat vegan. according to reliable source(s). It's not clear to me if either list belongs on Wikipedia AT ALL. If either does, it might be a separate section of this article (making this article a "List of Lists" article), or as a separate article. — Lentower (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You picnic a lot, but have also found places willing to cook you some simple vegan food. That may be so, but it doesn't mean that the people on the list therefore will do the same. The people on the list are celebrities you know.

"People should be on this list if a reliable source(s) can be found and cited, saying they meet the list's criteria." .

The title of this article is "List of vegans".

Now what is a vegan?

As said before: According to the Vegan Society veganism is "...a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose."

This Vegan Society is the oldest and undoubtedly most authoritative organisation in the field of veganism.

Somebody here said that "there are many definitions of veganism", but he didn't mention one other.

Of course everybody can decide for him- or herself what in his/her vision veganism is or should be, but that doesn't mean that his/her circumscription also is a definition of veganism.

About the same goes for the indeed many different ways in which dictionaries, encyclopediae, and many other sources describe veganism. These are no definitions, but as good as all, if not all, just descriptions of mostly non-insiders.

The definition of the Vegan Society by contrast is published as such in many reliable sources.

So when it comes to wheter or not meeting the criteria for this list, this definition can appropriately be handled as the one and only decisive criterium.

Now it's obvious, that the person this discussion is about "seeks to exclude AS FAR AS POSSIBLE AND PRACTICABLE cruelty to animals" for at least food; (like most names that still figure on the list). (In how far he also does for other purposes is not mentioned in sources, so that this question is not relevant in this context).

82.169.46.143 (talk) 04:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Not Gates, but Jobs

Somebody recently added Bill Gates to the list. Unfortunately he or she didn't add any sources, as a result of which this addition was reversed. This reminds of the fact that Steve Jobs hás been a fruitarian and so a vegan, but later on "became a garbage can like everybody again", in his words.

“ I was actually a fruitarian at that point in time. I ate only fruit. Now I'm a garbage can like everyone else. And we were about three months late in filing a fictitious business name so I threatened to call the company Apple Computer unless someone suggested a more interesting name by five o'clock that day. Hoping to stimulate creativity. And it stuck. And that's why we're called Apple.

”

So this name could at least be added to the list of former vegans.

References

92.69.243.252 (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove Capleton from headlines

I'd like to remove him from "featured vegan" on the left of the article. Indeed I think we should not promote capleton as a vegan because of his anti-homosexuel positions and lyrics of his songs which encourage to "burn them". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capleton#Criticisms or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Murder_Music for more informations. He can still appeared in the table though. Olivattaque (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider that as acceptable criteria for removing him. Just because someone adopts a moral stance in regards to their diet they are not required to be "progressive" in other aspects of their life. Betty Logan (talk) 16:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but not with calling the relevant sexual attitude "progressive"; the progressiveness of a vegan lifestyle may be evident and to a certain extend scientifically prooved, but it most likely has to be called very doubtfull whether any kind of scientifical support is available for a statement that homosexuality is progressive in the litteral meaning of this word.

82.169.97.44 (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not about removing him, just don't making him appear on the right with his picture. It's not the fact that he is progressive or not, in that case we wouldn't care if it was just for himself, but he promotes homophobia with violence. I don't understand you on this... We could for instance replace him with Joaquin Phoenix that has been the voice for the documentary "Earthlings" Olivattaque (talk) 12:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

We have plenty of pictures of white Americans who aren't homophobic so why do we need another? The image gallery is supposed to be representative, so someone who is not white and not American and is homophobic is a good candidate for the gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Taryn Terrell Image

She was removed for being a former vegan so her image should be removed as well and possible replaced by another form the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dairyfarmer777 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I will replace the image with Heather Mills who is renowned for her animal rights activism and veganism. Also, I notice Peter Tatchell is in the image gallery but isn't actually listed as a vegan, so I will replace his image with Mike Tyson. It will help to diverisfy the images and a boxer will be a good addition to the gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Russel Brand

The link used for Brand's former veganism does not actually say he stopped. It says "Sometimes I can't tell if someone is a vegan or a heroin addict and I've been both."

The sentence uses past tense "have been" but that is ambiguous. "Brand has been vegetarian since I was 14" for example says nothing about him still being vegetarian or not.

Is this enough to confirm being formerly vegan? Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

If the source doesn't explicitly say he has stopped then we shouldn't make assumptions. What he says is that he has been both a "vegan and a heroin addict", and all that really means is that he's not a "vegan and heroin addict" now. The way he words it is that he could have given both practises up, or just one of them. Betty Logan (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand it to be ambiguous but I don't read it that way as a "he's not a 'vegan and heroin addict' now" statement (the state of being both at the same time in the past but not in the present). I read it as he's only talking about the past state of being but omits whether that state had an ending (for both)(the state of being one in the past and the other in the past that may have overlapped or not and may have stopped or not ).

He was an addict at some point but doesn't state if he has stopped or has continued and that we was vegan at some point but doesn't state if he has stopped or continued. His statement only refers to the past but never says he stopped being an addict or vegan to think he has stopped one or both would require either another source or an assumption - the former which Wikipedia would need but not the latter which is not acceptable for Wikipedia. "he's not a "vegan and heroin addict" now" Seems like an assumption as he doesn't say what he is now. We have other sources that he claims to be sober but none that say he stopped being vegan.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 08:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, by either interpretation we seem to both agree it doesn't conclusively suggest he has stopped being vegan. Betty Logan (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Too promotional

It is clear that some people would like to use this list to promote veganism by including as many of the good and the great as possible on this list.

Wikipedia must promote a neutral point of view

I am not sure exactly why we have this list but its purpose can never be to promote (or attack) veganism. We still have a highly promotional list of occupations for the entries, some listing the great works of the subjects. I suggest we remove that column altogether as it serves no purpose. As every entry has a wikilink so occupation is not required for identification purposes. Even the pictures are generally flattering and promotional.

We must also make sure that we have a clear, simple, and easily verifiable set of criteria for inclusion. This will, by the very nature of veganism, which covers a range of practices and beliefs, be somewhat arbitrary. The criteria must be applied strictly and uniformly to avoid any pro/anti veganism bias in the list. If we do not do this, every entry is likely to to become the subject of an RfC or edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

An RFC may not be a bad idea to determine what exactly this list should include. If explicit criteria is determined by the community then in theory decisions made in line with such criteria will be backed by consensus. The first question I suppose is whether "veganism" should be treated along the lines of self-identification (in line with sexuality) or as a factual criteria (as with nationality). The other approach—as suggested by Kww—which I am leaning to is to limit the list to people who are notably vegan in some way. There is a huge gap between a Peta regular like Pamela Anderson and someone like Bill Clinton who seems to use the word out of convenience. Betty Logan (talk) 10:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how we could draw a non-arbitrary line between people who are "notably" vegan and people who just happen to be vegan. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with J Milburn that it would be very hard to draw the line, in particular between 'notable vegan' and 'very notable' and vegan, that is to say, one of the good and great who happens to be vegan. I think using factual criteria, strictly applied, is the only way to ensure the list is neutral.

Perhaps someone could tell me what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have any. It's one of those articles that exists basically because it meets our notability criteria. The List of vegetarians has been AFD'd three times (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vegetarians (3rd) and it each time it wins enough support to survive. Betty Logan (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep present criteria for inclusion

This comment is at the start of the article (as of version [1] and prior versions):

<!-- Only referenced people notable enough to have an article on English Wikipedia can be added to the list -->

<!-- Entries without references will be deleted -->

Many lists on Wikipedia have adopted one or both of these criteria to add an entry for an item that meets the list criteria(s). That is:

• The person must be notable. That is, there must be an article in the English Wikipedia about them, that is wiki-linked to. Note the arguments in WP:WTAF.
• Reliable source(s) must back up that the person meet the list's criteria, and be cited in this article.

I propose we develop a consensus to:

• actually use both.
• delete entries whose reference(s) do not verify that the entry meets the list criteria.
• add an Infobox at the top of this talk page stating this consensus.
• add this comment to the start of the article:

<!--The references must verify that the person meet the criteria in the lead.-->

Note that WP:Consensus is not a vote, but a joint decision made respecting the contributing editors' opinions, as well as {{Wikipedia_policies_and_guidelines}}.

Please state your unindented position in the style used in administrative consensus processes like WP:AfD, as in the following example. If you comment on another editor's position or comment, use the usual talk page guideline of each user indenting another level.

* Agree XXX - User A

XXX is a non-WPian argument, because of YYY. - User Y

::In considering YYY, we also have to follow ZZZ. - User Z

* Disagree DDD - User D

* Comment We need to consider WP policy POL - User C

GLINE also has to be considered. - User G

I'll start. — Lentower (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Agree for reasons I gave above. — Lentower (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lentower, thanks for your interest and comment but you have jumped the gun a bit. You will see above a proposal to do what what you have suggested via an WP:RfC (in addition to the one on Clinton). As it happens we do pretty much have what you suggest. There has been a consensus for some time that subjects here must have an English WP entry and all entries must have a reliable sources showing that they conform to the criterion (stated at the top of the article) that they adhere to a vegan diet. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Like Martin, I'm not really sure what the point of this discussion is. Of course a reliable source is needed to confirm that someone is a vegan, and of course an English Wikipedia entry is needed. Do you want to change anything? If you want to put a box at the top of the page just stating that this is the case, go ahead and do it. I won't revert you. J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Len, while you are here, you might like to give your opinion on Billybob Thornton - see above. Should he be on the list?

Milburn, would you be happy to accept Len as an arbitrator over Thornton to avoid an RfC? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

No. Your obsession with trying to avoid having a RfC is pretty revealing. J Milburn (talk) 10:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Fine. I do not have an obsession, all I am trying to do is to avoid unnecessary admin and work for others. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been thinking about this for a while. Should we treat veganism purely as "self-identification" or should we treat it as factual criteria? At the moment we have a mishmash of both approaches: entry to the list is granted primarily through self-identification and we exclude certain people based on factual criteria i.e. we would permit Clinton on the basis that he calls himself a vegan, but we then further exclude him on the basis he complements his diet with fish and cheese which violates the factual criteria for being vegan. This approach is slightly inconsistent because there is essentially no way to compose a list without self-identification, but including people who eat meat and fish turns the whole list into a farce. I honestly don't think an RFC will resolve this issue, and I think there would be a split outcome resulting in a "no consensus". In that sense an RFC is more in Martin's interests than J Milburn's because if there is no consensus to add someone to the list the default position is to leave them off it. I think there is some middle-ground here, where we could have sub-section for people who are identified as vegans but still admit to eating non-vegan products occasionally. We can make the distinction between those who identify as vegan but still consume non-vegan products and those who rigidily observe a vegan diet clear to readers without compromising the integrity of the list too much.

Ultimately if it goes to an RFC one side is going to lose, so if there is an area of compromise available then I definitely think we should pursue that. If there really is no common ground then we should just get the ball rolling on the RFC, and just make sure it's a neutrally worded. If that's the route you want to go then both of you should summarise your stances in a couple of hundred words or less below (to stop one side biasing the discussion) and I will compose and file the RFC under the completely neutral question of "Should Billy Bob Thornton be added to the List of vegans?". Betty Logan (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I find it very hard to come to any firm conclusion about whether the inclusion should be based on self-identification or factual criteria without knowing what purpose the list serves, although, like most others here, I am drawn to using factual criteria. I think it is best to use whatever makes it clearest who belongs and who does not. Using self-identification would not have solved any of the current arguments. My only real concern is that this list is not used to promote a pro or anti vegan POV. At the present, as Len points out, we accept either a source saying that the person is a vegan, or saying that the persons says that they are a vegan, or that they adhere to a vegan diet. This seems to lend itself too easily to being used as a promotional vehicle for veganism. Only adding those for whom we can find a source saying that a person adheres to a vegan diet, as I think Len is suggesting, is a bit too restrictive, in my opinion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Something we should all agree on

I say above that this list must be neutral. It should not promote veganism by showing how many great, good, and successful statesmen, performers, artists, scientists, and leaders of all kinds are vegans. On the other hand, it should not represent vegans as a bunch of crazy weirdos, or as an unfairly small minority.

Can we all agree on this principle? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It should, like all other Wp-articles, just be as informatively as possible, which in this case means that as many as possible names of well known perons, who provably say they are vegan, should be mentioned in it.

In case this leads to one of both mentioned consequences, than there is no valuable reason to try to avoid that. It's allways best to be realistic and just face the facts, so that everyone can draw his/her conclusions, no matter for instance certain interest groups may be concidered not to be pleased about such a developement.

It's very unlikely that there are any celebs, who falsely would say to be vegan, just to give this list more splendor; for what interest could they have in that? None, except in case they áre vegan indeed and feel called upon to make this public, knowing it can have a promotional side-effect. For the rest it may even be more comfortable for them not to make it public.

82.169.46.143 (talk) 00:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Having 'as many as possible' vegans in the list may give the impression that veganism is more common than it actually is. I have no problem in having everyone who meets an agreed set of criteria in the list but that is not the same as having 'as many as possible'.

One criterion that is well accepted here is that the subject must have an English WP article on them. Because there is a large pool of editors, who generally are not concerned whether a person is a vegan or not, monitoring biographical articles, we can be reasonably confident that population from which we are choosing vegans is not biased either towards or against veganism. This criterion also has the great advantage that it is very easily checked and verified.

The real problem we have is in deciding exactly who is to be listed as a vegan. There are two extremes, one is to list only those who are confirmed by a reliable source to permanently and continuously conform to every principle of veganism and the other is to list anyone who has ever adhered to any principle of veganism or claimed to be a vegan. I think that most people would agree that the former criterion is too strict and would unfairly restrict the number of people on the list and thus present a negative POV on veganism but the second criterion is too lax and would result in too many people being on the list and thus present the POV that veganism is more popular than it actually is.

Somewhere between these two extremes we should find some, easily verified criteria that neither understate nor overstate the popularity of veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned as well as other problems relevant to this article may be solved by bringing more diversification in it.

One of the questions that the current shape of the article most likely will raise with especcially other visitors who are familiar with veganism too, is the one what kind of vegan the mentioned persons individually are; who is a "dietary vegan", who is a "dietary vegan plus", (as those can be called who eat vegan and moreover practise the vegan principle in certain, but (by far) not all other aspects of their behaviour (e.g. avoiding the well known materials for clothing etc.)), and thirdly who are the "full vegans", that in all respects adhere to the vegan principle as described in the definition of the Vegan Society.

In the situation given those visitors will have to read the provided sources with every name, to find out the answer themselves.

This can relatively easily be improved by dividing the list in three relevant sub-lists.

Both sevice to readers and informative quality of the article subsequently can be improved further (perfectionated) by adding to each of these sub-lists two sub-sub-listst, of which one informs about those who háve belonged in the relevant sub-list (catagory), but don't any more, and the other about those who are known to nearly belong in it, which is the case when they adhere to the relevant principle for at least 70%; (a percentage that is handled in raw-foodism circles).

In this design for instance Bill Clinton could be mentioned in the second sub-sub-list under the sub-list of "dietary vegans".

82.169.46.143 (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is most people don't say "I'm a dietary vegan", "I'm a vegan that eats honey", "I'm a vegan that doesn't wear leather" etc. They simply say "I am a vegan", so even by looking at the sources we can't differentiate between the majority of cases. If the entries clarify their position then a note can be added next to their name. Betty Logan (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Guess most sources contain enough information to enable adding next to the names an indication about what kind of vegan the relevant person is/was.

It might be most efficient to use codes for that; for instance:

DV means Dietary Vegan

HDV means (own) Health Dietary Vegan

EDV means Ethical Dietary Vegan

EnDV means Environmental Dietary Vegan

EDVP means Ethical Dietary Vegan Plus, which says that the vegan principle is also practised in some other fields of behaviour than feeding; (e.g. non use of certain materials).

FV means Full Vegan, which stands for a vegan, who practises the vegan principle in all fields of behaviour; (e.g. see [2]).

Also possible are:

NDV, meaning Nearly Dietary Vegan (who's diet is vegan for more than 70%)

FoV and FoDV for Former (Dietary) Vegan. (Adding this item to the list means adding most interesting information, especcially for vegan and kindlike visitors; moreover it can reduce a possible promotional effect of the article).

195.241.138.113 (talk) 03:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. 'Classifiying' people according to our own definitions is original research, and thus against policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

For sure Dietary vegans, Ethical vegans and Environmental vegans are not "our own", but usual classifications; (see intro of Veganism).

From here it must be not too difficult to add some info like "former", or "nearly", within the rules.

195.241.138.113 (talk) 04:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

So is this still no agreed to? Its a good idea to have labeling where applicable.Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

So, do we or do we not agree?

I thought it should have been easy to agree on what is a basic principle of WP. Is there anyone who does not agree that this list should not promote veganism and it should not deprecate veganism? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a basic policy, Martin. Editors don't have the luxury of agreeing or disagreeing with WP:NPOV; they are obliged to observe it with no exceptions. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess all there is to discuss is how to apply that policy to this list. There seems to be a steady stream of editors using the list as a promotional tool for veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne

http://vegetarianstar.com/2008/07/11/why-does-avril-have-to-go-and-make-veggie-things-so-complicated/

Someone recently removed Avril but they did it without commentary. I think this might be enough to justify her removal. Though she is mostly vegetarian or vegan because she prefers not to eat those she stops short to refer to herself as those because she will eat meat and dairy occasionally. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 07:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, obviously I wasn't aware of this when I restored her name to the list. I agree she should come off but this is why we need sources to remove people too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep sources and users need to use the edit summaries. When I saw that I did a search to see why and found that article. Dairyfarmer777 (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

RZA

RZA http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2014/11/rza-promotes-veganism.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by B23Rich (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Angela Gossow

I made an edit through which I removed Angela Gossow from the list citing a specific place on her official Facebook page where she says she's only a vegetarian.

Betty Logan undid the edit citing WP:Reliable source as the reason. That's despite the fact that the guidelines say "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves" (WP:SELFSOURCE).

The official verified Facebook page for Arch Enemy has linked to a specific page for Angela Gossow, giving us every reason to take it as the singer's official page.

On that page, in the bio section she says: «I am a vegetarian, borderline vegan (I am allergic to most milk products). I am constantly cooking and baking when I am at home. I love blueberries. And fresh baked bread, hot from the oven coated in a thick layer of butter. Self-made marmalade. Cashew nuts. Salads. Goat cheese.»

So let's do something about the false information Betty Logan returned to the article. --Rose (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

If you had made your case a bit more strongly first time around then I would not have returned the false reliably sourced content to the article. You did not provide a link to page in question. You did not establish the veracity of the page. You seem to be an experienced editor so you should know that isn't the correct approach to challenging reliably sourced content, but I have no problem with removing the information now you have done so. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My summary of the edit included all the specifics one may need to verify the information (google "angela gossow facebook", search for "borderline vegan" within the "bio"). There's no better way to do it because of the 250 character limit other than by going into a lengthy discussion over yet another former/disputed vegan, which is what I was forced to do due to what you had done. This kind of actions can be counterproductive.--Rose (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

And what I mean by counterproductive is that if I were busy elsewhere, I might not have returned to this for a while and the false or outdated information that you brought back would be available to the public for the same amount of time. All because of your presumed unwillingness to at least try and verify what I had in the summary before making a change. The first Facebook page you'd come across would be the right one. --Rose (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is we wouldn't accept an addition to the list via a half-assed edit summary so removals should be held to the same standard in the cases where the information is reliably sourced. I also don't appreciate the assumption that your time is more valuable than mine either: if you have the link and can validate the veracity of the Facebook page then it shouldn't be left to me to chase down these details when you could just spare a couple of minutes to explain the edit on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rose, it is very important that information on this page (and anywhere else in WP) is reliably sourced, and provably so. It is not the job of our readers to track down sources which show the reliablity of a statement made in WP, it is up to the editor who adds material to add a reference which shows that the added material is correct.

This is a somewhat contentious page for some people and Betty is therefore right in strictly applying the WP:RS policy to this page. Without high quality referencing the page could easily become a list of rumour and speculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Penn Jillette

A recent People magazine article came out with Penn Jillette talking about losing a bunch of weight on a plant-based diet (Dr. Furhman's diet, specifically) and already someone has added him to this list but on Twitter, Jillette himself said "To be clear: I don't eat many animal products (like none) any more, but "vegan" doesn't describe me well." Since Jillette doesn't want the description of "vegan" to apply to himself I removed that entry. Helpsome (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the right call. According to the article he follows Dr. Fuhrman’s Nutritarian diet, and the article interprets this as meaning he doesn't eat animal products; however Jillette himself neither states he is a vegan or excludes animal products from his diet so we shouldn't make assumptions. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

More on occupations

I have tidied up the occupations for A-F to try and reduce them all to one or two words that best describe what the person does or did for a living (The normal meaning of 'occupation').

I may have made some mistakes and anyone is, of course, entitled to fix them, but there is a consensus to have just the occupation rather than a description of how or why the person is notable, or a list of the good or bad things that they have done in their lifetime. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to confirm the consensus for this approach before doing any more work on the subject only to find it reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I am on board with this and I think your edits are fine so far. We don't need band names or need to know what films they have directed. If anyone feels that a more specific description is necessary in a particular case then hopefully they will discuss it here it first and tell us how the information informs the topic of the article. Exceptions can always be made but the rhetoric in the article needs to be toned down overall. Betty Logan (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

NPOV and occupation

As discussed above WP must have a neutral point of view. That means that this article should neither promote nor discourage veganism. For that reason I have started to simplify and tone down the occupations in this list. They should be short and accurate but not, as many are, promotional. As all entries have a linked WP article so anyone who wants to know more about a person in the list can follow the link. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Having seen the revert by Vclaw I agree with Martin here: this article is simply a list of vegans, and much of the information is extraneous i.e. it does not matter if someone is a Reggae musician or a heavy metal musician or stars in the The Big Bang Theory or Veronica Mars. If readers are interested in these people per se they can follow the link to their biography. In all likelihood this list is going to grow in size as Wikipedia bcomes bigger so we should be judicious about the information we include. Martin's concerns about the promotional nature of the list are valid too and we can curb this by limiting the occupations to one or two words in most cases. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Martin and Betty. There is no need to list every accomplishment. Helpsome (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It should not list "every accomplishment", but it should say what they are known for, ie why are they notable. eg many of the musicians are members of bands, and that is why are famous, not for their solo works. So it should mention the name of the band. Or for sportspeople, it should at least say what sport they compete in. How is it helpful to change Brendan Brazier from "Triathlete" to "Athlete"? And some people are notable for more than one thing, it is POV to list one but not the other. And many of the changes are misleading, eg describing Matt Ball as a "company director". --Vclaw (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is Travis Barker known as an "entrepreneur"? Kristen Bell is an actress to credit her with "Veronica Mars" and "House of Lies" is to cherry pick what you think is most relevant. This is why their job and not their credits is what we should keep to. Helpsome (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Vclaw, I do not claim to have got everything right. There is no problem in correcting any mistakes or misinformation in what I have written but there is no justification for a complete revert.

We should not list what they are famous for. The field is called 'occupation' not 'memorable achievements' or 'famous for', I have never been sure what is purpose is but it is certainly not intended to show how good, great, and successful vegans are. That is promoting veganism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I hade done a few more. If in doubt, I am using the first occupation shown on the subject's bio page. This ensures that my edits do not in any way represent my personal POV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

What are the criteria for including an image?

How is it decided which images should be shown? Do we have the most famous, the most sucessful, a random selection, a selction balanced by age, sex, ethnicity etc. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

There are four approaches as I see it:

1. Have no images except maybe for one in the lead.
2. We drastically reduce the number of images to just half a dozen or so people who are prominent vegans, but that would take on a promotional aspect.
3. We make the gallery "proportional" but then I think that would just bias the gallery to famous people in media such as actors/musicians etc.
4. We try to make the gallery representative i.e. half men, half women and try to make sure that each profession and country on the list have some representation. We should avoid duplication: if we have one white male American actor, we don't need another, for example. This is the approach I have taken in the last year or so.

Betty Logan (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose any attempt to make the gallery "representative." Moreover making the gallery exactly 50% male is not representative at all. Most vegans are female, anyway. They are also not uniformly distributed by ethnicity. Wikipedia is biased toward notability. See also my specific concern below. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be biased towards anything per WP:NPOV. There are all sorts of reasons why representation is disproportionate on Wikipedia: there are more male editors than female, 60% of visitors are fom English-language countries, and 40% from the United States and this all has an impact on the coverage. If we constructed a gallery along the lines of representation on Wikipedia then the gallery should be full of white pop idols. Per WP:WORLDVIEW, editors should try to counter these biases and make articles neutral: this is a list of vegans, not English-speaking white vegans, and as such should reflect the statistical makeup of the worldwide vegan population as much as possible. If women are statistically more likely to be vegan than men then arguably the gallery should reflect this diversity, not merely reflect the editing interests of Wikipedia's readership. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Al Gore portrait

I added an image of Al Gore, arguably one of the world's most prominent vegans, to this gallery earlier today. My edit was reverted with the mind-boggling explanation "We have enough images of white American men." I notice that prior to making my edit, exactly half of the 42 portraits were of men. We are not supposed to be creating a false balance by attempting to make the portraits a demographic representation of humanity. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:32, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the gallery is not to promote prominent vegans, but rather to represent the type of people who are vegans. Unless you have statistical data backing up the claim that men are more likely than women to become vegans, that white people are more likely to be vegan than other races etc then biasing the list to any one particular portion of the demographic is introducing bias. If anything this list is weighted too heavily towards whites and Americans so we should be working to address that bias not increasing it. If you actually want to play a constructive role in this discussion then I suggest you join the discussion above where Martin has initiated a discussion on this subject rather than edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I could equally accuse you of edit-warring. Anyway, statistical data shows that women are much more likely than men to be vegan, but that's irrelevant. It is not our job to make this list demographically representative of vegans, and especially not if we are only guessing about their demographic distribution. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

An edit war is started by the editor who reverts a revert, not by someone who simply reverts a bold edit per WP:BRD. If every vegan in the world were included then by definition it would be representative. If we had an image of every vegan in the world in the gallery it would by definition be representative. If our goal is to create a portrait of vegans then it is a goal to make the list representative. As I explain above there are many built-in biases that serve as obstacles to that goal, but that doesn't mean we should just disregard it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

This was why I asked the question above. We seem now to have some simple and easily verified criteria for inclusion in the list but we still have arguments over the pictures. As Betty says, the purpose of the article is not to promote veganism but to show it, as it is.

One simple way to be representative of the list would be just to show every 10th (or whatever) person in the list but tthis would have its problems and I doubt it would get much support. Perhaps we should ask ourselves what the purpose of the pictures is. Does a list need pictures? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Well Sammy has compromised by replacing Andy Lally with Gore. I don't really see why the article needs a photo of Al Gore, but I suppose it doesn't need one of Andy Lally either so it resolves the matter as far as I am concerned. The question really comes down to what we want the gallery to do? If we want it to simply identify the subject of the list then we only really need one photo. If we want it to be representative of the list why do we even need to do that? The list arguably represents itself via its entries, and a gallery promotes some entries over others. Also, we have to bear in mind that the entries of this list are representative of anglo-centric editing interests, not really of notable vegans. For instance, if we had more female editors we would probably have more articles about female vegans. If we had more Chinese editors we would probably have more articles about Chinese vegans. You get the picture; our list would potentially look very different if demographic editing biases were completely removed. Now, we can't actually do much about who has an article and who does not, but we can attempt to remove such biases from aspects we do have control over. For instance, instead of our gallery showing that Wikipedians have a tendency to create articles about white middle-aged men why can't it simply show they come from all walks of life, different ethnicities, a wide span of ages etc? I suspect that would be truer to a comprehensive list of vegans of truly notable stature. However, if the gallery is just going to become another platform for promoting various activists—which tends to be the case with people that are famous for being vegans—then I would prefer to scrub it and save myself thousands of words debating the issue.. Betty Logan (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Sorry I overreacted earlier. I didn't realize what you were trying to do and so understood your edit comment completely out of context, and it incensed me. My preference would be to use reasonable notions of prominence as a standard rather than demographic representation, but perhaps there is room for both concerns. Anyway I don't perceive the issue as worth fighting over either, so I'll bow out with apologies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Drop the descriptions in the picture captions

One thing that would make the pictures less promotional of veganism would be to drop the descriptions in the picture captions and just have the names. Interested users can still follow the links but we reduce the promotional impact of the gallery. I will try a few.Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

In some cases descriptions can be excessive and can be regarded as promotional, such as when someone is called a "writer, activist, scholar, teacher and Zen monk" when really he is basically just a Zen monk. Removing all descriptions of who a person is, however, may be a hatchet solution to a scalpel problem. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

There is some objection here to having the pictures at all and I cannot see what purpose descriptions serve except to promote veganism. Removing just the descriptions seemed to me a good compromise. Interested readers can still follow the links. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

The descriptions are informative to readers who may be browsing the list. I think all lists ought to have photo galleries if possible - they are aesthetically pleasing and help draw the reader's attention to more significant items in the list. Moreover I don't see what is promotional about simply having a gallery of portraits. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:57, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

They are all nicely taken photos showing healthy people looking happy and attractive, that is what we see in adverts. Anyway, is the discriptions that I removed. If the 'former US Vice President', 'US Senator', a ' Canadian triathlete' are all vegans then perhaps I should be one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Most notable people are notable for good things. If you find a notable vegan serial killer, be my guest and add him and his miserable mugshot to the gallery. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You are quite right, 'Most notable people are notable for good things', that is why having a gallery is promotional of veganism, it is not anyone's fault it just happens to be true and contrary to the NPOV principle. Note though that I am suggesting a compromise, which is to keep the pictures but remove the descriptions from the captions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I think it is possible to remove bias from the descriptions without throwing away the baby with the bath water. For instance, describing someone as a "politician" isn't really promoting them: Hitler could be referred to in the same way, and so could Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Mugabe, Stalin etc. It's just a simple statement of fact. The problems are mainly limited to people who are activists, simply because their occupation is promoting an agenda; however if you just describe them as an "activist" and strip away the type of activism then you neutralize the promotional aspect of the description. Betty Logan (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I still find the gallery somewhat promotional. This may not be intentional but showing professionally taken pictures of notable people looking healthy and happy is one way that I would promote veganism if I had that job. I might then want to show how they covered the whole range of important occupations and that they were not a bunch of crazy hippy types.

There are no accusations here of any wrongdoing, it is just the way WP works. For any minority viewpoint there will always be supporters of that viewpoint eager to help WP present it in the best possible light; they may end up being the majority editors of an article, not because they want to misuse the system but because they are interested in the subject and willing to put in the time. I think we need to be vigilant over this. There is a great fuss being made in several places over paid-for-editing. In my experience it has been unpaid enthusiasts who have introduced the most bias into WP. The beat way to deal with the issue is not to judge the editor but the content; WP is not a noticeboard for various groups and we must be strict about NPOV. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Some occupations

Why is NFL football player better than American football player?

Is 'activist' an occupation? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

1. It isn't, but I changed it to make it match the other descriptions.

If it is all the same to you then, I would rather have, 'American football player' for them all, or just 'footballer' for all types for football player if you prefer, or even just 'sportsman'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to changing them all to American football players, but "footballer" means soccer player. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

2. If you're paid for it, it is. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If that is his actual job title and you have a source that is fine but I suspect that the job is referred to by a different name. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

They are usually referred to as activists in those sources. If you want to go find their fancy formal job titles, be my guest, but this seems inconsistent with your previous concerns. --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fur farm vandal

Now that is not promotional, it is going too far the other way. Let is just find out what the chap does for a living and put that, otherwise 'Unknown'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fur farm vandal"

I'm concerned about this edit. Leaving aside the problem with describing living people as "ugly", I do not feel that "fur farm vandal" is a reasonable description of Peter Daniel Young. There are three reasons for this: First, the phrase "fur farm vandal" is not one which is commonly used/used at all. Second, the claim that he is a "vandal" is disputable (so describing him as such potentially violates NPOV). Third, and most importantly, the claim that he is a vandal seems to be a negative one, effectively making it an unsourced negative claim about a living person (something which is a big no-no). If there is going to be description (and I've no strong opinion on this), my preferred caption would simply call him an "animal activist", but I am also open to a longer description mentioning that he targets fur farms or that he has been imprisoned. Another option is "direct activist", which I think would be the way to refer to someone who engages in direct action. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The man was convicted of vandalizing a fur farm, and this is the source of his notability. Accordingly I think "fur farm vandal" is a reasonable and neutral description of him. Calling him an "activist" could be regarded as an endorsement of his actions, while saying he was involved in "criminal activity related to fur farms" is weirdly vague - it could mean he was operating them, and people browsing the list could get the impression he was a completely different kind of criminal. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Describing someone as an activist in no way endorses their actions. Someone could accept, for example, that "pro-life" or anti-gay types can be activists without finding their goals or methods at all reasonable. If we're concerned about vagueness, the phrase "fur farm vandal" is just as problematic as my wording- in what way is his vandalism related to fur farms? (A "penis vandal" could be someone who draws penises on walls or someone who vandalises penises, for example). Also, a glance at his Wikipedia article suggests that he was convicted for the taking animals from fur farms and conspiring to take more- not "vandalism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the source of the dispute that he is a "vandal?" I actually chose this word because it seems like the most mild way of describing what he did, without implicitly endorsing it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(ec) "Vandal" is clearly negative, currently unsourced, clearly disputable (for example, we might define vandalism with reference to an intention for destruction, while we could describe Young's actions as about rescue, not destruction- I think that would probably be his own description, but I obviously don't know, having never heard of him before today). And, again, the claim of "vandalism" is not obviously related to his actual convictions. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the crime he was convicted of was "Animal Enterprise Terrorism." --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not according to our article- this claims he was indicted on those grounds, and then found guilty of different crimes. Even if you were right, it's not clear what that has to do with "vandalism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No, he was convicted of it also.[3] So should we describe him as an "animal enterprise terrorist?" --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"American animal activist convicted under the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act", with a link and a good reference, sounds neutral to me. However, that source does not say he was convicted under the act- it says he (at the time of writing) "plan[ned] to plead guilty to two federal counts of animal enterprise terrorism". Josh Milburn (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Jared Leto "mostly vegan"

In the Ryan Seacrest interview he calls himself a "cheagan" when asked if he's a vegan or vegetarian, explaining that he's "a vegan most of the time until [he] cheats" by eating things that may not be vegan and how he's eaten a red velvet cake that may have had butter in it. He's also uploaded a picture of a similar cake on instagram, tagging it #chegan. --Rose (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Timothy Bradley not vegan

According to the Guardian, Bradley is no longer vegan. "To gain more power in his 5ft 6in body, Bradley has abandoned his vegan diet for animal proteins." [4]. He should be removed from this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C5E9:B450:F0F3:11AC:E054:7E76 (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note- I've removed him from the list and added him to the "former" list above. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Paul McCartney

Any particular reason why Paul McCartney is not on the list?JS747 (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

He is on the List of vegetarians. Are you sure he is vegan? It is well known he is vegetarian but I could not say if he is vegan also. Betty Logan (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Separation of people: dead or alive?

Hi guys

I'm interested in seeing some progress on this list of vegans, would it be possible to separate dead from alive vegans? --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that is something that is usually done on lists of people is it? None of the articles listed at Category:Lists of people by ideology are structured in that way. If you think it would be helpful to provide some overview of who is alive and dead perhaps it would be better to provide birth/death dates. Betty Logan (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan that's okay, but "logically" there are no dead people on this list, right? Even then, luckily Adolf Hitler for e.g. was only a vegetarian, from outside it looks like Vegans have super powers and never die :) Birthday/death date would improve the list for everyone. --huggi - never stop exploring (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)