Talk:List of vegetarians

Template:Maintained

ARCHIVING REFERENCES

It is important to keep references up to date, but as is often the case with web references the links die. When adding a web reference please also archive it at http://www.webcitation.org/archive, so that even if the link dies the page will be archived for reference. If you discover that a link has died, please check to see if there is a record of the page archived at http://www.webcitation.org/query or http://archive.org/web/web.php.

Names needing sources

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

• Thaila Ayala Y
• Paulo Vilhena
• Fernanda Tavares
• Brigitte Bardot Y

David Duchovny

In the case of David Duchovny, neither of the sources in this edit state that he used to be or stopped being a vegetarian. The early source describes him as "vegetarian" and the later source describes him as "pescetarian". Since pesecetarians are often described as "vegetarian" we cannot draw a conclusion that he was a vegetarian and became a pescetarian. WP:SYNTHESIS states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Therefore according to our own policies, we need a source that explicitly says he stopped being vegetarian or used to be vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 18:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Images of women

I don't really want to get involved in editing this article, but I'd like to express concern about the images of women wearing little clothing in this version. We had a similar situation at List of vegans where someone kept restoring Pamela Anderson in a bikini. I also don't think it's a good idea to start the article with an image of a Playmate of the Year (however dressed), when there are lots of women in academia, the professions, business and politics who are vegetarians. It would be good if the editors maintaining the page would give the images some consideration from that perspective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If memory serves the Pamela Anderson one was chosen because it was a PETA promotion rather than because she was in a bikini, so it was thematically relevant. Should we also remove the scantily clad figure skater too for showing some skin? Ideally there should be a balance across men and women, ethnicities and nationalities, ages, and the professions, and while that includes female academics it also includes Playboy centerfolds. I also think it is better when the pictures show them in context, like a singer singing, or Martina playing tennis, and yes an underwear model in her underwear, otherwise we just have a gallery of faces and there is nothing inherently interesting in that. The list ideally should show that vegetarians come from all walks of life, and showing the person "at work" helps to capture that effect. The list has a bias towards the entertainment industry simply because they are more photographed, and all the images have to be in the public domain since all images are effectively replaceable so would fail fair use criteria. And if we can show a good looking guy with huge muscles or a pretty woman with huge jugs then why not? It helps demonstrate there are no adverse physical effects of being vegetarian. Betty Logan (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The Pamela Anderson bikini shot used to be the first image in the lead, followed by a Canadian Playmate of the Year. [1] You then moved the Anderson bikini image to List of vegans. [2] There are currently 13 images of women in this article. Of those, 3 are of "Playmates," 1 is an erotic dancer and porn star, and 1 is a glamour model. So 5 out of 13 are of women whose claim to fame involves removing their clothes. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The ordering I believe used to reflect the ordering of the countries, so the two Canadian women came top, and now should probably be reordered alphabetically. I am happy to do that, and if you indicate where you would like section breaks I would be happy to add those too. I also disagree that an erotic dancer "takes off her clothes". She is a skilled professional, and has a dress code in the same capacity that a ballerina has. If you can find images that would extend our visual demographic then feel free to replace a couple of the Playboy Playmates since they are over-represented, but I feel we should retain one since I don't think women should be inherently valued less as role models just because of their choice of career. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've swapped some of the images of women to remove the focus on porn. The list of images now begins with Christine Lagarde, director general of the International Monetary Fund, rather than Jayde Nicole, a Playboy Playmate of the Year. I've also rearranged them so that it's female, male, female, rather than bunching several of the images of women together. I know that was inherited from the article having country sections, and the list of images followed that alphabetical listing, but there's no need to stick to that now the sections have gone.

I see the names in the captions aren't linked, there are full stops after the captions (which aren't sentences), and sometimes ordinary words in captions are linked and sometimes not, so those issues should be fixed too at some point. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I have restored one of the Playboy bunnies since I don't think it is representative to remove all three to replace with women from professions that are already represented. Betty Logan (talk) 19:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to have a single "Playboy bunny" or porn actress. We have other actresses in the list. Please add an image of a male porn star if you want porn to be represented. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If we had a male porn star on the list I would add it! I have conceded to the removal of two Playboy Playmate, but getting rid of all three just to replace with another actress is clearly agenda driven editing. Each profession only needs to be represented once. Betty Logan (talk) 19:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Images of women

Should this article contain images of women porn stars?

The article has 42 images of notable vegetarians running down the side. Thirteen of these are of women. Until recently, six of the 13 were of porn actresses or Playmates of the Year, several in bikinis, all added I believe by Betty Logan. The article led with an image of Jayde Nicole, a Playboy Playmate of the Year. [3] Previously, it led with Pamela Anderson in a bikini, followed by Jayde Nicole. [4]

The image of Pamela Anderson was earlier moved to List of vegans. Of the remaining five, I today began the process of swapping them for images of women in the professions and academia if I can find them, or mainstream singers and actresses. The article now leads with Christine Lagarde, director general of the International Monetary Fund.

However, Betty Logan believes some of the images of porn stars should remain, and is reverting when I remove them. I'm therefore asking for consensus to remove them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The images in question in the article are:

1. File:Jodie Marsh crop.jpg, Jodie Marsh, a British glamour model.
2. File:Shanna Moakler, Playboy Mansion.JPG, Shanna Moakler, an American model crowned Miss USA 1995 and Playboy Playmate in 2001.
3. File:Actress Serenity.jpg, Serenity (entertainer), an American erotic dancer and pornographic actress.

Only one of the three women have been involved in porn. The images are all tasteful, and I do not believe they should be removed from the article purely due to their choice of profession. It is not Wikipedia's job to provide role models. I believe the gallery should have a wide demographic, and the reality is that adult entertainment and the sex industry are a large employer of women. In view of this I think it is fair that women who work within these industries have some representation. I don't see the point of removing these images and replacing them with more images of mainstream actresses and pop stars, when they are already represented. I believe that if SlimVirgin wants to add more images the article would be better served by removing images of duplicate professions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove the images of female porn stars. If editors want the porn industry to be represented visually, an image of a male porn star can be found instead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Are you making an WP:UNDUE argument? That female porn stars are overrepresented already so there should be examples of other professions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, there is no reason in an article of this kind to focus on photographs of female porn stars. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if if UNDUE applies to the photos, but if it were to apply the pictures should favour those who are more notable as a vegetarian. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Unless it's someone so famous they have their own article and have made it a major part of their identity as reported by WP:RS. Prurient interest on wikipedia is just so silly. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Everyone on the list has their own article, and how would you define a "major part of their identity"? Are you advocating the removal of everyone who hasn't been involved in vegtarian activism, because the porn star and the Playboy Play Mate have taken part in PETA campaigns. There are famous dead people on the list that never took part in nay form of vegetarian activism. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep No reason to have two rabbis in the gallery and for a porn star to be barred. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• You're welcome to remove one or both rabbis. And if you want a porn star, as I said, you can look for a man. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If we had any male porn stars on the list I would include them. But thanks for admitting this is part of an agenda, and nothing to do with having a representative gallery. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. No-one whose primary notability is for porn should have their image used in this type of article. Please can we get a grip. Formerip (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you further clarify your response. When you mean porn do you actually mean porn, or are you implying glamor models, erotic dancers etc? I'm not being funny here, but only one of the images up for removal is of a porn actress. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'll answer the question as given in the RfC: Yes I don't see what a person's occupation has to do with being a vegetarian. We shouldn't discriminate based on someone's profession. I would think, that the best way to handle this, would be to display images of people most recognizable to our readers, and/or people most recognizable as vegetarians. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You have the right rule-of-thumb, but a logical non sequitur. Porn actresses may be highly recognisable to some of our readers, but they are indistinguishable one from another for most of our readers. That's why they should not be used. Formerip (talk) 20:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Recognizability is problematic, since it would be heavily biased towards celebrities and people living in English-speaking countries. People who have actively engaged in vegetarian activism I can go along with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a fair point. Rather than recognisability, I would say salience. Formerip (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

@FormerIP: You're assuming facts not entered as evidence. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, why is there a picture of Frankenstein's monster in the article? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll also add that I don't see what a person's gender has to do with this list or showing a picture of them. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't see the point of these lists and especially galleries that are not relevant (are they pics of people eating or promoting a vegetarian lifestyle?) but wikipedia is not censored and this seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Given the society that we now live in where women such as glamour models, provide a role model - like it or not- for young women, they are a key part of the article. To clarify, every day women who read the tabloids know of these women and as such are probably more interested and it provides a point of reference for them, as opposed to people like "Christine Lagarde, French director general of the International Monetary Fund" and "Jane Goodall, a British primatologist." Who people have no idea who they are. -- MisterShiney ✉ 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  Is there is policy-based argument that I missed in your comment? I doubt that women are the main audience interested in female porn actors and your theory about young women appears far-fetched. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a policy for their removal? No. Didn't think so. As another editor has already pointed out it is a clear case of one editor not liking it. -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:25, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sure. WP:UNDUE as part of WP:NPOV. There is no evidence that almost 50% of female vegetarians are porn actors or nude models. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No (remove them), and remove all of them. Dear God this list is a mess. It needs a lot of love. We can start by removing the images, which add nothing to the article, and by only adding images or content that are related to or illustrative of vegetarians. A picture of Frankenstein's monster with animals, or of Jodie Marsh or Serenity with a salad or at a demonstration (with a caption about why they are vegetarians worthy of caption) would be much more appropriate. (The list also needs to be formatted with a smaller ref column, pushing the page refs into the footnote itself.) I'd say more, but really the arbitrary illustrations of people who once told a reporter they don't eat meat is where this has to start. czar · · 22:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Would you be ok with this, where vegetarianism is an explicit part of the image: File:Pamela Anderson 2.jpg? Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

If it were part of a gallery (possibly at the bottom of the page?) of other vegetarian-related pictures of notable vegetarians, yes. By itself or in that column, no (per reasoning above—gratuitous, undue weight). czar · · 22:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove. However from my perspective none of the current images should be used either. Nobody who is famous and by the way also a vegetarian should be used. Images of people who are famous for being vegetarians, Linda McCartney for instance, would be a good choice (but currently commons doesn't have appropriate images of her). Christine Lagarde & all the other images - not so much--Cailil ^talk 23:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per WP:UNDUE. Also I'm concerned that the images are being used not as illustration but as a way to "prove 'em wrong" or, more precisely, to "tackle the perception" that vegetarianism causes "breasts to shrink". The vegetarianism article is the place to tackle that perception (if it exists). This list isn't the place to argue in favor of vegetarianism or advance a certain view by arranging specific images in a way that conveys a subtle or not so subtle message. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - The proposed pictures are very tame indeed (compared to some of the other images that are available in Wikimedia Commons), and Wikipedia is obviously not censored. The suggestion that pictures of male porn stars would be "OK" in the article in question but female ones would not shows the silliness of the main argument proposed for deletion of the pictures that are in question here. Guy1890 (talk) 02:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep It's the flip side of NPOV: porn stars are just as important as saints, nuns, and Presidents. Now the importance of a list based on somebody's diet is a completely different issue.—Kww(talk) 06:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Keep Moakler. The problem is one of statistical bias. There are many highly visual pornography actresses, hence, one develops the idea that a significant percentage of women star in porn. Since in fact probably less than 1% of women are pornography actresses, only one photograph is "representative." 3 is too much . -WikiSkeptic (talk) 15:20, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi WikiSkeptic, as a matter of interest, why would we need even one in your view? I can understand having one in a list of (for the sake of argument) 1,000 images of women. But in a list of 13 images of women, why would even one need to be of a porn star? If the porn industry must for some reason be represented visually, could we not include it in the list of images of men? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:03, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Our attitude towards sex and sex work should be sex-neutral: i.e., we should neither be promoting nor attempting to hide sex, as we are neither pimps nor Victorian maidens. If List of Renowned Teachers was an article, we should not include a "teacher who participated in the world's greatest group sex act" unless that teacher was separately renowned, as that is attempting to infiltrate the category of renowned teachers with prurient content. However, if the article is List of People Who Died in the 2032 Mars Mining Disaster (obviously facetious title...) and one of the people happened to be a 4D Naked Video star, then of course we should not remove that person from the list because of their occupation. This article, 'list of vegetarians' is somewhat between the categories, but a person's participation in video nudity does not meaningfully disqualify them from vegetarianism. Moakler is fairly representative of the three, and apparently she just does nude modeling so draws a compromise category. Sorry for the long response; I'm waiting for a visa and bored~!!! hahaha -WikiSkeptic (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, but you didn't really address my point. In such a short list of images of women, why would even one need to be from the porn industry? That's what I'm curious about. Of all the professions, industries, careers, notability factors we could include, why would the porn industry have to figure, so that we must have at least one, and at one point had six, out of just 13 images? Why is porn star a "vital" profession when it comes to representations of women? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you got no answer to that one. Andreas JN466 02:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think you could turn that right back around: Why do we need a picture of a tennis player? a figure skater? an actress? a primatologist? Surely there are more professional porn stars than professional figure skaters. The only thing I can think of is you just don't like porn/porn stars (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong), and that's censorship. Ignatzmice•talk 12:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If there were someone who insisted on having six or at least three figure skaters in a list of 12 vegetarians, I would object too. Oddly though, that is far rarer than someone insisting on an undue number of bikini shots. Nor would anybody listen to such a person if they then claimed that figure skaters were being "censored." Get it? Glamour models are no different. Andreas JN466 08:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove all of them. It is a list, not a collection of photos. They add nothing to the information. Photos are not meant to simply decorate an article. WP:BRD GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Remove, Either all the individuals should have their images (when available) included, or none of them. Why choose only certain individuals? Why not include all of them? If we're only going to include images of some individuals, than we should include no images of individuals.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep as per WikiSkeptic, or else remove all of them as per Czar and others. I don't see that the images add a whole lot to the article—but if there are to be any images, removing (non-erotic!) pictures of porn stars because "Eeew porn ick" is totally bogus. If you don't like the imbalance, add more pictures of non-porn stars. Ignatzmice•talk 17:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Who said porn stars were icky? The objection seems to be that it is unbalanced to represent women primary with porn stars. As to balancing it with more images, the list already includes too many images, IMO. And since porn stars represent less than 1% of notable women, we would have to add at least 600 images of women to make it balanced. Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"And since porn stars represent less than 1% of notable women" Do you know that? I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage of notable women on all of Wikipedia that are in the adult industry is significantly higher than the percentage of all women (in let's say just the total U.S. population for kicks) that are in the adult industry. One has to be notable in the first place to have a page on Wikipedia, and, of course, the super vast majority of people in the world aren't notable, which doesn't mean that they are bad people at all. The primary objection here has always appeared to be that there were any women from the adult industry (pictured or not) on this list, which does basically reduce down to an argument that "porn stars were icky". If the users that are primarily editing this list decide that they don't want any images of anyone, then fine, but excluding adult industry people from this list cannot be tolerated on Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not censored. Guy1890 (talk) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

And also, why is this representation of women only being applied to "porn stars"? To put it another way, an estimated 500,000 women work in adult entertainment in the United States, I suspect a significantly higher number than those that are actresses, and yet we have three of those too. Or academics, or politicians. It seems to me if we are interested in representing women we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes. If we are interested in representing women engaged in the vegetarian movement, then PETA uses a disporportionate number of highly visible women such as actresses, pop stars, models and "porn stars". If we are only interested in representing women on this list, then there are several porn stars and adult models. Betty Logan (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

if we are interested in representing women we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes. Whoawhoawhoa, that's a little over the top there, yes? We can look for images of women from all sorts of professions, not stereotypically female professions. Ignatzmice•talk 02:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that point, but if the argument is that a Playboy centerfold is not "representative" of women then neither is a film star by the same rationale! In reality very few of the women in this list come from "representative" professions. What I named were some of the largest employment sectors for women and none of them are represented on our list, mainly because they are not notable. Representation becomes a completely nebulous concept in regards to notability. Betty Logan (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove most or all of them. I don't think they should be excluded purely due to their profession, but including 6 in the list is way too many and WP:UNDUE. I also think the list should only include pictures of the most notable people on the list, which probably wouldn't include any of the porn stars (but I could be wrong). Kaldari (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove not only undue weight, but irrelevant. A few famous people of various professions may be suitable for the article, the only reason these are in is exploitative, as they are far fro the most famous or notable vegetarians. Montanabw^(talk) 20:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove image stack entirely I won't comment on the above accusations of I don't like it or Advocacy, but the format as it exists now is not suitable for a stand-alone list. Either the images should be moved to the list entry for each person (Cf. List of Presidents of the United States), in which case every person would have an image, or there just shouldn't be images at all (Cf. List of Sri Lanka Tamils). Given the size of this list, I'd favor the latter. Ibadibam (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Remove per Kaldari and Montanabw. Andreas JN466 02:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Remove - I glanced back through the history. Looking at the the version of this page that existed before Slim started editing, I've got to agree with SlimVirgin that there seemed to be a weird and slightly perverse emphasis on adding pictures of porn stars/adult entertainment professionals/models to the list. There were definitely too many. Frankly, I'd try to limit the images to subjects who have a very high degree of notability (e.g. Christine Lagarde, Natalie Portman, Jane Goodall, not Marsh, Moakler or Serenity). A bunch of the men could probable be removed too. In fact, I think Ibadibam's Remove entirely proposal is a reasonable solution as well. NickCT (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - Given the admirably clear statement about the editor's editorial motivation and editorial action: "I today began the process of swapping them for images of women in the professions and academia if I can find them, or mainstream singers and actresses," there can be no appropriate response but to oppose it. Why on earth should it matter whether these are images of people who have appeared in porn. Striking notable women from this set of images because they are porn actors is as clearcut an example of editing from a point of view and censorship as I can imagine. It ought not be countenanced by the community. Sadly, the reason and actions display a total lack of understanding about how we do, and how we don't, edit around here. If this editing, for these reasons, is to stand, I suggest we change our name to Bowdlerpedia. (Timestamp will look funny because I've now combined two earlier edits at SlimVirgin's request, on my talk page.) David in DC (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• • Shenanigans! No one is saying we can't have one or two porn stars. Most people are pointing out the weird over emphasis on posting pictures of porn stars on this page. Seems really undue to have so many. Porn stars only represent a very small number of vegetarians. The number of pictures of them that get posted should reflect that fact. NickCT (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

That is what you are saying though. Currently there is only a single image of a porn star in the article in addition to a topless model and a Playboy centerfold and this RFC will determine whether these three images will be removed or not. Female pop stars and film stars also make up a very small percentage of vegetarians, so the disparity between your position and David's is that he disagrees with removing images of women that offend Slimvirgin's sensibilities when the same rationale of representation isn't being applied to other women who only represent a small percentage of vegetarians. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What offends my (and I suspect SlimVirgin's) sensibilities is not the images of the women concerned, but your odd preoccupation with having such a large percentage of the women shown here be glamour models and porn stars. Having that many is just way weird, intrusive, and inappropriate in an article like this. Andreas JN466 07:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Betty Logan - re "That is what you are saying though." - No it's not. I don't want to speak for SlimVirgin, but I'm guessing she wouldn't object to one or two of the images being a porn/glamour star. NickCT (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all the current representation of women in "adult industries" is not out of proportion with other industries being represented such as pop stars and film stars. Second of all, Slimvirgin's RFC question is explicitly clear: should "porn stars be removed"? If the consensus is "yes" then I guarantee she will remove all of them (she has already tried removing the single Playboy model on List of vegans), because that is what she wants to do and that is how I would interpret such a consensus too. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@Betty Logan - Why don't we just ask her for clarification? @SlimVirgin - Is it your position that ALL the images of women in the occupations discussed should be removed, or would you be OK if one or possibly two images remained? NickCT (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what her position is. If she were ok with just one or two images she wouldn't have removed the single image we had in the List of vegans. I also know how precise she is in her RFC questions: if she were ok with keeping one or two images then she would have asked "should we limit the number of "porn stars" to a couple of images. I have never seen her file an RFC that leaves room for an ambiguous interpretation. If you are ok with keeping one or two images then all you need to do is make it clear in your RFC response that you are fine with such images but would like it limited to a couple or whatever. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, if people want one of the 42 images to be of a porn star, I have no problem with that, and I've suggested that we find a free image of a male porn star who's a vegetarian. My objection is to having found six porn stars among the 13 images of women (currently reduced to three out of 13). Something has obviously gone wrong with the way Wikipedia represents women if, out of 13 images in an article unrelated to porn, six are of female porn stars. I'm therefore asking that we remove all of them, given that so few women are represented.

As I asked above (but got no answer), of all the professions we could include, why would the porn industry have to figure in a short list of images of women? Why is porn star a "vital" profession when it comes to representations of women on Wikipedia, but not to representations of men? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin re " Something has obviously gone wrong ........ if, out of 13 ..... six are of female porn stars. I" - Completely agree with that. I think what would be a good idea is if we agreed on an "acceptable ratio". I'd say that it would be OK is 1 out of 12 images of female vegetarians, was of a female who was in some way related to the adult entertainment industry. Does that seem like a reasonable ratio to you Slim? If not, can you tell us what you think would be an "acceptable ratio"? NickCT (talk) 02:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, again I have to ask (third time of asking, but no one will answer): why is involvement in the porn industry regarded as a "vital" profession for women, such that it must be included in such a short list? And if it is so regarded, why not for the men too? (See #Systemic bias below for the very different ways in which men and women are represented visually on this list.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not that it's vital. It's that taking them down for the reasons you've stated is antithetical to WP:NPOV and WP:NOTCENSORED. And also, please see the section below re Notability vs statistical representation. As for a male porn actor, I can find a gazillion references to Ron Jeremy being vegan or vegetarian, especially since his recent hospitalization. But I can't find one in a WP:RS. I'll keep looking. David in DC (talk) 03:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

What does this have to do with [[WP:NOTCENSORED]? It just seems like a weird and rather biased representation of women vegetarians to me. Kaldari (talk) 06:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

David in DC argues that in Wikipedia, any image added by a pseudonymous editor can be removed again from a list like this, except images of porn stars and glamour models, because they enjoy the protection of this WP:NOTCENSORED policy. With that bizarre logic, it's not surprising that images of porn stars accumulate at the expense of women in other walks of life. Would you say his view is widespread among Wikipedians? And if it is, why isn't the Wikimedia Foundation doing something about it? Andreas JN466 10:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin - re " why is involvement in the porn industry regarded as a "vital" profession for women" - I don't think it is "vital". But if that's your bar, it's sorta high, no? I mean I might look at Jane Goodall and ask, "why is involvment in primatology regarded as vital?". The question shouldn't be, is this a vital profession for a particular gender, more than it should be, is undue emphasis given to this particular profession.

I think at the end of the day, my feeling is that a single image of a female in adult entertainment is probably not undue emphasis. More than one probably would be. NickCT (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

For me, the impression of their apparently being considered "vital" derives from the tenacity with which editors here are pushing for inclusion of this particular profession in this particular article. If someone had inserted three images of Tamil political activists, and then cried "racism" if it were proposed to delete any one of them, I would consider it equally devoid of merit. Andreas JN466 15:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Nick, no one has argued that we must have at least three, and preferably more, primatologists; or even that we must have one. What is being requested here is that, whatever selection criteria we use for the men, we use for the women too. To argue that, of all the professions we could offer, we must have at least one (and preferably more) male porn stars would be odd; and indeed no one thought to argue that. But when it comes to women, it was fine to add six, and still we cling to three and insist that there must be one. No one will explain why. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin - I think you're mischaracterizing the argument. Everyone agrees with you that it wasn't "fine" to add six. Most agree with you that three is probably inappropriate, but no one is arguing that we must have one. What is being asked is whether it is OK to have one. NickCT (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps I was unclear, I'll try one last time. There may be policy-compliant reasons for removing some of these images. But the wording of SlimVirgin's RfC and many comments on this page speak of a reason that is profoundly non-compliant with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In this regard, I'm more concerned with WP:NPOV and somewhat less with WP:NOTCENSORED, but both apply. As does notability and coverage in reliable sources Our decisions in editing should be based on core pillars. Please see the section way at the bottom of the page that explains my view about notability and reliable sources as they pertain to the subject at hand. I'm certainly not arguing that WP:NOTCENSORED gives special protection to images of porn actors and glamour models. I understand that these images are offensive to some. But I'd make the same argument about images of Muhammad, Mormon undergarments or The American Flag with a swastika super-imposed on it. It's not about porn. It's about not letting ideology or theology dictate what images are appropriate on wikipedia. An image of the prophet shouldn't be taken down from an article about the cartoon kerfuffle; an image of Mormon undergarments shouldn't be taken down from an article about the LDS Church; an image of a swastika/Old Glory mash-up shouldn't be taken down from an article about skinheads. In each case, if a free-use image exists and is added to the article, it shouldn't be taken down because it's offensive to some. It's regrettable that this seems bizarre to some. The question of why the Wikimedia Foundation isn't doing anything about it seems at least equally bizzare to me. I'd urge caution on that line of inquiry. While no policy violation in and of itself, the road from that question toward violation of another core community value seems to me a fairly short one. David in DC (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Your logic is still bizarre. Imagine I insisted on having at least three, but preferably six images of Ghanaian matriarchs in this article. You say, six Ghanaians is too much; there should be a more balanced selection. Then I come back at you and say, Well, I understand that Ghanaian women are offensive to some, but we shouldn't take images down just because they are offensive to some people who don't like Ghanaians. You see what I did there? You are simply abusing NOTCENSORED to push for something that is undue. And the definition of "undue" is a key part of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Andreas JN466 15:44, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

• strongly random Just randomize it. Talk:List_of_vegetarians#A_simple_solution_-_randomize_it. This solution takes all of the POV pushing off the table. If you like, you can change the images every 3 months, or even every month if you really want. Either way, it gets rid of any bias. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep. We may not like it, but showing off their bodies is still an effective way for women to become notable. Unless men stop reacting to them in "that way," this is probably never going to change. By suppressing the notability of such women, Wikipedia would attempt to become an agent of social change, rather than the neutral reporter of facts it should be. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Here is an overview of what we have:

• 1 economist
• 4 politicans (counting Gandhi)
• 1 tennis player
• 2 scientists
• 1 figure skater
• 1 revolutionary
• 4 actors (1 male, 3 female)
• 1 mathematician
• 6 musicians (2 male, 4 female)
• 1 playwright
• 2 Rabbis
• 1 TV presenter
• 1 artist
• 1 psychiatrist
• 1 journalist
• 1 dancer
• 1 writer
• 2 doctors
• 1 novelist
• 1 glamor model
• 1 architect
• 1 Playboy centerfold
• 1 Archbishop
• 1 porn star
• 1 poet
• 1 comedian
• 1 footballer
• 1 monster

Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Systemic bias

The 13 images of women, in order, used to be:

• Pamela Anderson in a bikini; Jayde Nicole, Playboy Playmate with breasts half exposed; Martina Navratilova, tennis player; Surya Bonaly, figure skater; Kareena Kapoor, actress; Sharon den Adel, singer; Nicolette Kluijver, presenter and model; Georgina Verbaan, actress; Mojo Mathers, politician; Anni-Frid Lyngstad, singer; Julie Christie, actress; Jane Goodall, primatologist; Leona Lewis, singer; Jodie Marsh, model in a bikini; Lauren Anderson, Playboy Playmate; Isadora Duncan, dancer; Shanna Moakler, Playboy Playmate; Hayden Panettiere, actress; Serenity, porn actress.

The 29 images of men were:

• Lo Wing-lok, doctor and politician; Albert Einstein, scientist; Gustav Struve, revolutionary; Pythagoras, philosopher; Mahatma Gandhi, politician; George Bernard Shaw, playwright; She'ar Yashuv Cohen, chief rabbi; Leonardo da Vinci, artist; Abraham Isaac Kook, chief rabbi; Frederik van Eeden, psychiatrist; Francisco van Jole, journalist; Jaime de Magalhães Lima, writer; Amílcar de Sousa, doctor; Leo Tolstoy, novelist; Antoni Gaudí, architect; John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople; Lord Byron, poet; Paul McCartney, singer-songwriter; Dick Gregory, comedian; John Harvey Kellogg, doctor; Herschel Walker, football player; Forest Whitaker, actor; Gabe Saporta, musician; and ending with Frankenstein's monster.

Are there really no women vegetarian physicians, lawyers, scientists, philosophers, artists and journalists? When I suggested above that we look for free images of such women, the response was that, if we want to find images that are representative of women, "we should be looking for images of nurses, waitresses, school teachers, barmaids and prostitutes." [5] But this argument isn't applied to men. No one argues that, given that most men aren't physicians, rabbis, and mathematicians, we should be looking for images of male taxi drivers and plumbers.

All that is being requested here is that we do for the women what we have done for the men; whatever criteria were employed to find images of men, we use the same criteria for images of women. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

It's obvious that much of this overly-long discussion isn't getting through to you, so I'll try one last time. You're still talking about a former composition of a list that not longer exists...who cares at this late date? That's not what's up for discussion here, period. The image you give of Jayde Nicole isn't one with her breasts "half exposed", it's one of her in a dress with a neckline...get a grip on reality please. Also, the image of Jodie Marsh that's up for inclusion now isn't a "model in a bikini", it's an image (one of several that are available) of her in a cropped top. None of the originally proposed images here are that risque at all, period. As has been pointed out before, the pool of possible women or men on Wikipedia that are available for inclusion on any list is drastically reduced by the fact that the super-vast majority of people in the world aren't notable and therefore will never have an article written about them on Wikipedia. We're all on a wild goose chase for a "representative" list of people from a drastically reduced available pool of possibilities. Can we bring this silly exercise to a conclusion anytime soon? Guy1890 (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The list is very similar now to the way it was. Pamela Anderson was moved to List of vegans, and instead of the bikini image I swapped it for one with clothes. [6] When I removed it I was reverted. [7] I swapped two others in this article for the same women with more clothes. [8] I removed a porn star and was reverted. [9] Wikisceptic removed another of the porn stars and was reverted. [10] [11] So the list is more or less as described above.

Again, what I'm requesting is that whatever is done for the images of men be applied to the images of women. If women are to be portrayed in bathing clothes or underwear, let's have the same proportion of men in the same clothing. If there are three women porn stars out of 13 images, let's have the same proportion of male porn stars. If there are male scientists and philosophers, let's look for female scientists and philosophers. If we currently don't have free images of such women, that's another indication of systemic bias, so let's ask for them. But there's no justification for representing women as Playmates of the Year, porn stars and models, while representing men as physicians, mathematicians and architects. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

None of the originally proposed images here are of women in "bathing clothes or underwear", period. "let's have the same proportion of male porn stars." Are there any male adult film actors, that have articles on Wikipedia, that are vegetarian? Are there "female scientists and philosophers", that have articles on Wikipedia, that are vegetarian? You do understand that the reason that those kind of people might not be on this list, yet, is because they haven't reached the notability requrement that Wikipedia has in place, don't you? Guy1890 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Guy, if there are currently no images of women in underwear, it's because I replaced them. I then began the process of looking for images of women academics, scientists, etc, when the reverting began, so I decided to come here to request consensus. I would like to find those articles and images, and if we currently don't have enough, I'd like to fix that. (I've posted a request on Commons for a male vegetarian porn star, if we must have porn stars.) But as things stand, Betty Logan is likely to continue restoring the (currently) three images of female porn stars out of 13 women overall, so I need consensus to continue the work.

Please take the point about systemic bias, rather than arguing about details. Look at the way women are represented, then look at the representations of men. It's unacceptable. This page reflects the bias of Wikipedia, not the real world. If we have to fix it by creating articles and uploading images of women vegetarian academics, that's what we ought to be doing, rather than acting as if it's written in stone that men are likely to be scientists and rabbis, while women are likely to be Playmates of the Year. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"It's unacceptable"...in your opinion, and it seems clear that you are willing to go to great lengths to get your interpretation of the rules here on Wikipedia to prevail, but that's not the way the system works here from what I've been able to gather over the years. "This page reflects the bias of Wikipedia, not the real world"...which makes your focus on these issues seem awfully pointy to me. Guy1890 (talk) 01:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are clear...?

Are we discussing the removal of the images full stop or the removal of some pictures of women because of their profession...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 18:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Neither. We're talking about the UNDUE focus on images of women porn stars (previously 6 out of 13 images). The issue is whether, in a list of just 13 images of women, three (as of now) or even one ought to be of a female porn star. So (a) do porn stars need to be represented at all in such a short list, and (b) if yes, could they be represented by a man instead of a woman? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

So we ARE talking about the women and their profession here...? I guarantee if they were all women rocket scientists, there wouldn't be an issue. There is no undue focus here. It's just how it has happened. It has nothing to do with their profession, but vegetarians in the public eye. -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, if there were women rocket scientists, I wouldn't be complaining. My concern is that there are a lot of images on Wikipedia and on Commons that objectify women. Usually on WP these are in articles about the porn industry. But when I come to an article that has nothing to do with porn, I don't expect to see them here too. What I would like to see here is a wide range of different male and female professionals, artists, scientists, academics, actors, singers, etc. It saddens me that a situation ever developed that saw 6 of the 13 images of women focused on breasts and the porn industry. I would like to work for a project where it wouldn't occur to an editor to do that. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, can we focus on the current number, which is currently THREE. I have not stopped you removing two of the three Playmates. Secondly, will you please refer to them as centerfolds or glamor models rather than porn stars, since only one of them is a porn star to my knowledge. Taking your bra off for a photo shoot is not porn, so it's disrespectful, not to mention potentially libellous. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

None of the proposed images here of women in the adult industry objectify anyone. They are extremely tame photos. Guy1890 (talk) 20:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Guy and MisterShiney—there is no rational reason to remove pictures of certain people just because of their profession, and these are obviously not pornographic photos (though porn is a very emotional topic for many people, as evidenced here). In addition, I agree with Cailil below that there isn't much good reason to include anyone who isn't notable for being vegetarian. Ignatzmice•talk 18:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

"Should this article contain images of women porn stars?" was the question for consideration. I think a number of us are arguing for the removal of all of the images. I included my rationale in my post above. czar · · 20:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• (ec)Actally a number of us are saying all the images should go. The only people who should be on the list, not to metion illustrated, are those who are notable for being vegetarians. People who are famous and also by the way vegetarians are being given undue weight, regardless of what their profession is--Cailil ^talk 20:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, that should apply to the entire contents of the list. A list of people based on something as trivial as their diet doesn't make any sense unless the people are actually notable for having that particular diet.—Kww(talk) 17:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• An interesting point, which reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Christian entertainers (2nd nomination). Ignatzmice•talk 19:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely - that's my point. For the list to come into line with policy it should *only* list ppl notable for being (in this case) vegetarians. And it should only have images of those most notable for that. As per WP:CSC: "if a complete list would include hundreds of entries, then you should use the notability standard to provide focus to the list." This list needs serious focussing--Cailil ^talk 20:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable suggestion to me on the face of it, but what sort of criteria would you use? For instance, would someone like Alicia Silverstone be considered a "notable vegetarian" for prancing around nude in PETA ads, on the basis of engaging in vegetarian activism? Would Bill Clinton be a notable vegetarian for simply discussing his diet in depth during a CNN interview? Would Armin Meiwes be a notable vegetarian given his high profile conversion? Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Being a PETA spokesperson would certainly qualify,although, unfortunately, given the nature of their ads, it would aggravate SlimVirgin's legitimate concern about overrepresentation of nude females. Mentioning vegetarianism in an interview shouldn't even come close to warranting inclusion.—Kww(talk) 21:59, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

These lists do not only include people who are notable for being X. They include people who are notable and who are X. That is, it is a list of notable vegetarians, not a list of people notable for being vegetarian. Similarly, in a List of Muslim lawyers, we would not exclude a lawyer who became notable as an MP, but who had never been notable as a lawyer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It would over-represent celebrities in general, I fear. I am also not overly keen on turning the page into a PETA advocacy list either. I feel we need a simple, effective but not overly stringent criteria. For me, I think Bill Clinton would actually be a really good entry on such a list: lots of high profile secondary sources—with no vegetarian agenda—reported his conversion to veganism. Clinton becoming vegan was a big, notable story. I am less keen on including people who just announce it on their Twitter page, since how does that establish notability? What makes it notable is when a media outlet like CNN pick the story up. Likewise with these PETA ads. They are pushing an agenda, so I don't think a video on the PETA website establishes the notability i.e. Silverstone posing nude for PETA was activisim, but it wasn't notable until the main media outlets picked up on the story. I think a really good step for these lists (along with the vegan one) would be to insist on a neutral, secondary source, and see hwere that gets us. Betty Logan (talk) 22:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE: "A person may be included in a list of people if all the following requirements are met:

• "The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. An exception to this requirement may be made if the person is famous for a specific event, the notability requirement need not be met. If a person in a list does not have an article in Wikipedia about them, a citation (or link to another article) must be provided to establish their membership in the list's group and to establish their notability on either BLP1E or BIO1E.
• "The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources."

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing at all wrong with establishing additional criteria to keep a list from becoming unwieldy or meaninglessly large. The main problem with this list is that it has taken an extremely common thing and attempted to list every instance. In many countries, this is effectively a List of people with two nostrils. This list, and its partner in crime, List of vegans, need serious pruning before they are meaningful.—Kww(talk) 23:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: photos of noted vegetarians

A few editors have commented that the article should feature either photos of noted vegetarians or none at all. I don't particularly agree and I don't care much about list articles (although I do care about the pornstars thing), so I feel a bit stupid for having done the work, but here is a list of people who either have reliable sources giving particularly significant attention to their vegetarianism, are noted for vegetarian activism, writings etc or have won an award for being a vegetarian:

Bryan Adams, André 3000, Ashoka, Brigitte Bardot, Russell Brand, Cesar Chávez, Jessica Chastain, Ellen Degeneres, Albert Einstein, Mohandas Gandhi, Woody Harrelson, George Harrison, Damien Hirst, Chrissie Hynde, Alexander von Humboldt, Joan Jett, Shahid Kapoor, Abraham Isaac Kook, KRS-One, Carl Lewis, Leona Lewis, Bob Marley, Paul McCartney, Malcolm McLaren, Morrissey, Martina Navratilova, Alex Pacheco, Parshva, Natalie Portman, Prince (musician), Pythagoras, Henry Stephens Salt, George Bernard Shaw, Percy Bysshe Shelley, Gustav Struve, Leo Tolstoy, Leonardo da Vinci, Ellen G. White, Kristen Wiig, Virgil.

That's the same number of photos as we have now. A few names are actually not listed at present, so I guess that would need to be fixed with cites. It slightly reduces the proportion of women, but that's just because it was difficult with the new criterion.

My list may not be definitive, but would editors support a change along these lines? Formerip (talk) 20:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I've noticed that 3 or 4 of these are included in List of vegans. A minor complication. Formerip (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed above, and I am against it on the grounds it massively over-represents celebrities: about half of those images are of actors and popstars. They are already over-represented as it is and this approach would exacerbate the problem. Given a choice between this proposal and Slim's sanitized version, I think the sanitized version would still be more representative of the list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

That could be fixed. I steered away from quite a few historical figures to keep it close to the shape of the current list, but those are available if wanted. Note also that, if the possible vegans are removed, there are actually only 16 pop stars and actors in the list. Formerip (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

My view is that we should have as wide a range of "professions" as possible: there is really no need to have more than one actress, if for example you can add a tennis for instance or an ice skater instead; ideally we want to show just how diverse vegetarianism is in society. So if that sort of demographic spread can be achieved through vegetarian "activism" then that is probably a step in the right direction rather than the arbitrary approach we have now. However, it still doesn't resolve the central issue at the heart of the RFC: someone like Pamela Anderson who was a Playboy centerfold and who has participated in several prominent PETA campaigns and whose photo is among the images at List of vegans would qualify under the criteria you are proposing, and I still think Slim would prefer to remove her. Betty Logan (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Fictional Characters...?

Why on earth are they in here?? -- MisterShiney ✉ 19:10, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Fictional characters don't belong here. Helpsome (talk) 20:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

They were added by Kayau, the list's "steward". I've never been overly keen on their inclusion but it never bothered me to the extent of initiating their removal. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem someone is being bold and taking them away. I am happy with that. Fictional Characters do not meet the criteria for this article. If however there was an article for fictional vegetarians I am sure that would be fine.... -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the discussion, I removed the rest of the characters listed as fictional. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability good. Statistical representation, not so much.

Decisions about editorial content should be about policy, not prejudice against a particular profession. PETA campaigns around the idea that "I'd rather wear nothing" than wear fur, and related campaigns against eating animals have successfully linked supermodels and porn actors in myriad reliable sources. One may not like this. One may even detest it. But one should not violate policy over it. Please see this representative sampling of news stories, spanning the period from January 31, 2011 through February 16, 2012:

PETA's Controversial New Super Bowl Ad, The Huffington Post, 31 January 2011
Martineau, Chantal, PETA Stops Being Coy About Its Veggie Porn, Promises To Go Pro With .XXX Site, The Village Voice, 24 August 2011
White, Madeleine, PETA to launch porn website: Is this still about animal rights?, The Globe and Mail, 10 September 2012
Walzer, Phillip, PETA plans 'erotica' website to promote cause, The Virginian-Pilot, 20 September 2011
Caulfield, Phillip, PETA hopes to launch pornography site, PETA.XXX, to promote veganism, The Daily News, 20 September 2011
Kelly, Tara, PETA's Porn Website To Promote Vegetarian Message, The Huffington Post, 21 September 2011
Vergakis, Brock, PETA plans porn website to promote message, Associated Press, 21 September 2011
Roberts, Hannah, He'll be able to bring it like a tantric porn star': Controversial PETA ad claims going vegan may make you so good in bed you'll INJURE your girlfriend, Daily Mail, 16 February 2012. (Warning to the squeamish: This one's in very bad taste, but it's still from a reliable source.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by David in DC (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What these sources document is that PETA is using erotic memes in PR campaigns. (The http://peta.xxx website does not actually include any porn, but videos of animal cruelty. The address redirects to a peta.org page which says, NOW THAT WE HAVE YOUR ATTENTION We know that there's more to life than sex and that you have multiple interests. Now it's time to see a few PETA videos considered so "hardcore" and so "offensive" that no TV stations have dared to run them. PETA believes that animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, use for entertainment, or abuse in any way. At PETA, we use every available opportunity to share this message—we always have and always will. For many animals, it means the difference between life and death. Learn more about PETA at peta.org.) What these sources do not document is that reliable sources focus a quarter of their coverage of female vegetarians on porn stars, erotic dancers or glamour models. They simply don't. --Andreas JN466 11:58, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk of "a quarter of their coverage" means we're talking past one another. I'm talking about notability as measured by coverage in reliable sources. It's clear we disagree, at a very basic level. I fear we're simply re-iterating our differences now, shedding more heat than light. Please feel free to have the last word in this section. I'll not prolong a debate that is now properly resolved by the community, having read, and re-read, new iterations of the same points. David in DC (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I thought someone said we had three images of women working in adult entertainment, out of a total of 13 images of women. That"s near as dammit a quarter. Feel free to correct me on the maths, if the numbers have changed. Andreas JN466 15:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A simple solution - randomize it

Rather than spend all of this time debating, why not just let a computer solve this for us?? Seriously! We could easily write an algorithm that would choose 24 or 48 or .. whatever... random bios from a pool - then the editors would add those to the article. We could re-run this same algorithm once a year or once every 6 months, to circulate people around. That completely eliminates any bias whatsoever in favor of anything whatsoever- male/female/pornstar/prime minister/whatever - yes perhaps "less" famous people would be chosen, but is that really that big of a deal? Seriously, just randomize it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Can images be randomized on Wikipedia? If images could be drawn from a randomized pool that would be great, providing everyone's image would be eligible. Could that be automated, because if I did it by drawing names out of a hat and a "porn star" came out, I think Slim would file a complaint with the Gambling Commission. Betty Logan (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Gandhi

Totally unrelated to the current debate. I corrected the caption for Gandhi. It's a common mistake, but Mahatma was not his name. It was Mohandas. Mahatma is a title.

However, I can't find him in this list, nor in the list of vegans. If we have a source, he should be in one list or the other. If we don't, his picture should come out. I'll start looking. It's a pretty glaring omission. I'm sure he was one or the other, but have no source for either. If someone knows and can beat me to the punch, I'll be most grateful. David in DC (talk) 16:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is the International Vegetarian Union saying that he was vegetarian and he also gave a speech to the London Vegetarian Society in 1931 entitled The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism. Helpsome (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

(ec)According to Louis Fischer's The Life of Mahatma Gandhi (London:Harper Collins, 1997, p.40 - sorry, I can't help the title!), he was on the board of the Vegetarian Society of England. On first arriving in England, it says, he was unable to eat properly until he found a vegetarian restaurant. According to p. 39, he had vowed to his mother before she died never to eat meat or eggs. He also didn't drink milk until a doctor advised him to in 1918, after which he drank goat's milk "up to his last supper" (p. 203-4). Thanks for a handy bit of work avoidance. Formerip (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I found a book with the same name issue, but it's a good source so I used it. I found the 1931 speech reproduced in a literary journal. It wouldn't be kosher as a stand alone ref, but it's allowed to back one up. If someobne wants to swap out my book for a better one, please feel free. I just wanted to get the name in the list with an appropriate ref. It seemed odd to have the pic but not a list entry. If the RfC is closed by deleting all pics, I sure didn't want to lose he reference to Gandhi. It's be sort of like having a list Method actors without Brando David in DC (talk) 18:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A question

Why aren't all of these people categorized as vegetarians? Why isn't there a "vegetarians by nationality" tree? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, nevermind, just saw the recent CFD that deleted all of the nationality tree. Ok, discussion happening here now. FWIW, I think Category:Vegetarians should be purged of people, and upmerged to Category:Vegetarianism, welcome your thoughts over here Category_talk:Vegetarians#Category:Vegetarians. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Serenity now!

"I want to impress upon you the need for extreme watchfulness. The censors may come individually, or in strength. They may even appear in the form of our own editors."

Should the most famous vegetarian of all time, Serenity, be featured with an image in this list?

Survey

• Of course - pron stars are WP:NOTCENSORED, so for the good of the internet and Wikipedia we must protect Serenity's featured position in this list. To do otherwise would sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids surrender our integrity to those who would sooner give up freedom than defend persecuted vegetarian porn stars. Kaldari (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Serenity's image on the list, contingent on the outcome of the other RFC above. A porn star is an interesting choice for this list, since being a sex worker is often equated with a lack of morality so it's interesting to represent somebody from such a background undertaking an ethical decision. Also, I just think Wikipedia should resist the media trend of whitewashing sex workers out of public view, because I think it contributes to a wider problem of dehumanising such women which leads to the abuses and violations against them being largely ignored by society. Betty Logan (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• Comment OK, here's the problem: I agree with the two "keeps" above and think Kaldari's edit to the article, and especially the wording of this RfC, are about as pointy as edits come. However, they are also the funniest and, in a very important way, most mature and adult bit of argumentation I've ever seen in one of these wiki-brouhahas. For me, the most certain marker of adulthood is the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. I also never trust a person without a sense of humor. And, being old enough to get the George C. Scott/bodily fluids line without the illustration, I genuinely laughed out loud when I read it. Thank you, Kaldari, for bringing a sense of perspective to this kerfuffle. You're wrong on the merits, but so right in your approach that I can only tip my virtual cap with a smile. David in DC (talk) 10:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)