Talk:List of vegans

Former/disputed

Former

List of former vegans. This list is maintained here to help prevent outdated information being returned to the article.

Name	Occupation	Birthplace	Source
André 3000	Rapper	United States
Drew Barrymore	Actor	United States
Timothy Bradley	Boxer	United States
Daniel Bryan	Professional wrestler	United States
Bill Clinton	42nd President of the United States	United States
Chelsea Clinton	Daughter of Hillary and Bill Clinton	United States
Common	Hip Hop musician	United States
Jennifer Connelly	Actor	United States
Ellen DeGeneres	Talkshow Host	United States
Zooey Deschanel	Actor, musician	United States
Ginnifer Goodwin	Actor	United States
Anne Hathaway	Actress	United States
Jamie Hince	Musician	United States
Daniel Johns	Musician	Australia
Angelina Jolie	Actor	United States
Jared Leto	Actor, musician	United States
Alison Mosshart	Musician	United States
Gwyneth Paltrow	Actor	United States
Brad Pitt	Actor	United States
Natalie Portman	Actor	Israel
Jason Schwartzman	Actor	United States
Ben Stiller	Actor, comedian, director, producer, writer	United States
Taryn Terrell	WWE Diva Tiffany	United States
Liv Tyler	Actor	United States
Mike Tyson	Boxer	United States

References

Mistaken/disputed

Name	Occupation	Birthplace	Source
Lisa Edelstein	Actor Note: seems to be a vegetarian, not vegan	United States
Angela Gossow	Musician	Germany
Stig Harder	Founder of Fashion Net, Lumiere Magazine	Norway
Avril Lavigne	Singer, songwriter	Canada
Alanis Morissette	Singer, songwriter	Canada
Billy Bob Thornton	Actor, screenwriter, director and musician	United States
Betty White	Actor	United States
Williams sisters	Tennis players	United States
Thom Yorke	Singer, songwriter	United Kingdom

References

Unsourced

Name	Occupation	Birthplace	Source
Adam Gnade	Fiction author	United States
Dan Piraro	Artist	United States
Promoe	Lead rapper of Looptroop Rockers	Sweden
Adam Myerson	Cyclist	United States
Shane Told	From the Canadian post-hardcore band Silverstein	Canada
Billy West	Voice actor	United States
Nick Zinner	Guitarist for Yeah Yeah Yeahs	United States
James Yorkston	Scottish folk musician	United Kingdom

References

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)

Grimes

Grimes is described in NME as a "vegan artist", and quotes her as saying that she has taken a "1 day hiatus". This is why I have added her back to the list. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

One source says,'US band say singer-songwriter is "not vegan" '. The other just says, 'The actor and musician talks vegetarianism, acting, and tells us that Grimes is his spirit animal'. I see no source saying that Grimes is a vegan. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

NME quotes some band as saying that Grimes is not vegan. It goes on to describe her as a "vegan artist"- that should be enough. Out quotes Grimes as saying that she is "vegan for intermittent periods". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article also quotes her as saying the "Ben and Jerrys is the only brand of ice cream i ever eat. their cows are treated ethically" so it appears this "hiatus" isn't just a 1-day thing. A term exists for vegetarians that consumes dairy products: lacto-vegetarian. An article labeling someone a "vegan" is neither here nor there, especially when it highlights a dispute where her vegan credentials are being openly challenged by other vegans. Simply put, calling yourself a vegan doesn't make you a vegan if you don't observe the practices associated with the diet. Ecorazzi also notes her saying "My brand of veganism is one wherein if your grandparents have no idea what you are talking about then you eat their beef stew rather than upset or confuse them. or if you really want to have cake with an egg in it on the holidays then you have that rather than just not being a vegan because you don’t want to give up occasionally having something that you love." It seems her brand of veganism is very different to the commonly accepted version so on that basis I challenge the addition of her name to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's nice. I wouldn't personally call her a vegan ("demi-vegan" or "vegan-end-of-vegetarian" is probably how I'd describe her) but, and I'm sorry to break it to you like this, but Wikipedia isn't based on what Betty/Josh thinks. We base our entries on what the reliable sources say. And NME seems like the right kind of source for information about musicians- if she's described as a vegan there (and we don't have any sources suggesting that it's wrong/outdated) then it should be enough. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on consensus and there are two editors who dispute your interpretation of the claims. Since you are an admin would you please explain how WP:NOCONSENSUS is not applicable to your edit? It was a policy the last time I checked, and you should be upholding it not violating it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOCONSENSUS has nothing to do with the current situation. Had you read it, you would know this. In the future, please read policy pages before citing them. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Josh, I do not see where NME describe Grimes a vegan artist. Can you quote the exact words please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Martin: "US band DIIV have criticised vegan artist Grimes for her take on the rules of the dietary choice." Josh Milburn (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I do not know how I missed that.

The article makes clear that her take on being a vegan is somewhat idiosyncratic. In other words that she is not a vegan within the normal meaning of the word. That is what the source says. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the source is that she has a particular account of veganism, while some people criticise her as not a real vegan. The fact, though, that she's referred to as a "vegan artist" is the key bit, for me- I hear this as "sure, there's an in-house debate among vegans about whether she's a real vegan, but she's still a vegan as far as we're concerned". To reiterate, for what it's worth, I'm not sold on the idea that she's a vegan (though I only came across her for the first time today, so far as I know) but I do think that we should follow the sources. She seems to self-identify as vegan, and is referred to as such in at least one reliable source (NME being about as good as it gets in terms of pop music magazines)- that's enough for the list, in my view. If we step beyond this, we're getting involved in the kind of arguments I referred to earlier in this comment, and I'm not sure that's the right thing for Wikipedia to be doing. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, when somebody talks about their brand of veganism it is tacit acceptance that their practises are not consistent with the general understanding of the term. @Martin Hogbin: You should just revert his edit; I would do it myself if I were not at three reverts. No single editor—admin or not—should get to unilaterally determine how the sources should be interpreted. His reverts have violated NOCONSENSUS and they are not in the spirit of WP:BRD either. Betty Logan (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I have repeatedly explained to you why my edits were not in violation of "NOCONSENSUS". Your insistence that they were is ridiculous, bordering on trolling. I do not want to unilaterally declare anything. I started this discussion. (And you're the only one who has mentioned that I have admin tools in this or any related discussion. I've not made an admin action in six weeks.) As to your initial claims- that's odd. If someone from One Direction talked about "their brand" of pop, you wouldn't want to use that as evidence that they were not pop musicians (would you?). Even if you would, it doesn't change the fact that she's explicitly labelled as a "vegan artist" in NME. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Martin and I must of course be incorrect because it is inconceivable that you are wrong. Since I don't interpret a key piece of policy in the same way as you then obviously I am "ridiculous" and a borderline "troll". At least that's now cleared up. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

To say you are twisting my words would be to give you too much credit. If you want to discuss my conduct, you're welcome to leave messages on my talk page, but I can't promise that I'll engage with you. This is an article talk page- it'd be nice if you could use it to discuss the article. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

If you don't want people to comment on your conduct then perhaps you should refrain from poor faith accusations of trolling. It cuts both ways sonny. Betty Logan (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Josh, you think she is not a vegan, I think she is not a vegan, the band think she is not a vegan, Betty thinks she is not a vegan. The source does not say she is a vegan. We all agree that, when the word has its normal meaning, she is not a vegan. I really cannot see what there is to argue about. You have been bold, you have been reverted, you have edit warred but there is clearly no consensus for your change. You should know better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Betty: I'm not calling you "love" or anything of the sort, so please refrain from calling me "sonny". You can comment on whatever you want, but this is meant to be a discussion about the article. Martin: I was not the person who initially added Grimes to the list. I was the person who added her back after Betty removed her (three times). I'm amazed that you still hold that "The source does not say she is a vegan"- the very first line of the article refers to her as a "vegan artist". I'm not sure how it could be any more explicit, but it seems that there is a disagreement about what the source actually says. Perhaps we could hold a RfC- I'm happy to be bound by whatever the result is (would you be?), as I don't really have the time/inclination to argue about this much further. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Both Martin and I were discussing the issue and your interpretation of policy is a key component of the problem, regardless of whether you accept it or not. You were the one who started with the ad hominem attacks on me so you are hardly in a position to criticise. You have become increasingly disruptive in this discussion and have failed to take any points on board: two editors believe you have misiniterpreted sources and you have failed to obtained a consensus for your edits. That is the bottom line: as Martin has astutely pointed out you haven't gained a consensus for your edits, you have simply edit-warred to retain your preferred state. Betty Logan (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

We are allowed read what a source says, that is not OR or anything improper. Yes the source does use the words 'vegan artist' but the whole point of the article is that she is not, by the generally accepted meaning of the word, a vegan. In Wikipedia, or indeed any encyclopdia, words are expected to be used with their generally accepted meaning unless clearly stated otherwise. The whole thrust of the NME article is that Grimes may have been described as a vegan but she is clearly not a vegan because she eats animal products. I am genuinely puzzled as to why you want to add one particular person to this list based on a perverse interpretation of an article that is actually making the point that she is not a vegan.

I personally have no strong views on veganism but I do want WP to be a quality encyclopedia. For some reason I have worked on this article with the sole purpose of maintaining an encyclopedic and neutral article rather than a medium for attacking or promoting veganism. The addition that you support significantly corrodes this quality.

There is no consensus to add this person so I am going to revert as this is the correct procedure in such cases. By all means call an RfC if you wish and we will let that decide. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Occupations

I am still not sure why we have the field 'Occupation' but there seems to be a consensus to keep it, however, the purpose of the field should not be to glorify the person by listing their many and varied (often dubious) contributions to humanity and thus promote veganism. Can we try to stick to one major occupation please. If I have got it wrong please feel free to change. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

There was agreement some while back that, in order not to present vegans in a promotional light, occupations should be simple (one word if possible). As I say above, if I have selected the wrong principal occupation from the list given, please feel free to correct me but that is no reason for reverting wholesale.

NPOV is a fundamental principle of WP which means that we should not try to present vegans as successful, attractive, or healthy (or for that matter as unsuccessful, ugly, or unhealthy). Long impressive descriptions of a person's occupation give a POV impression of the person. Please let us keep it neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

People who have multiple occupations should still have them listed. I'm dubious of why this should be kept "simple", but if so, it ought to be only as simple as possible, and not simpler. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The matter was discussed [here] where there was general agreement that 'Occupation' was not intended to be 'list of achievements' or to promote veganism by showing how successful or versatile the subject is. We have a link to the article on the subject for those interested in finding out more about them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You still should not remove the occupations of people who have more than one notable occupation. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Images

In order to insure that the images are neutral can I suggest that we stick to the image in the article on the person concerned. This will have been subject to selection by a wider usership and, we hope, carefully selected to be the best representation of the person as a whole. I have changed a couple to see how it goes.

I also have to ask why we need to have the occupation in the image caption. This look overly promotional to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Having nationalities and occupations in the pictures is no more "promotional" than having them in the text of the article. No one would argue this, for example, at list of female mathematicians. Your concerns strike me as paranoia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I am rather puzzled as to why a list of female mathematicians needs to state 'occupation'.

Why do you think we need to give the occupation twice on this page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

For the convenience of the reader. Why do you think it is "promotional" to state a person's occupation?

I asked why state it twice. We already state it in the table.

Re the other list, actually look at it and you'll see what I mean. I think that list is a good example of what list articles ought to look like - it conveys as much relevant information as possible, instead of being a dry collection of phone-book-like data. --Sammy1339 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The other list is even worse; it looks like a book entitled, 'Women can be mathematicians too'. Although I fully agree with that statement it is not the job of Wikipedia to make points like this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think this has been discussed before, so the discussion may be in the archives somewhere. Some of the images and captions are promotional, but I do not think it is necessary to remove all the descriptions from the captions to address this. Here are a couple of things I can support to address the problems:

1. Remove all images of animal rights activists from the gallery. This is promoting the subject matter of the article. There is no shortage of images we can add to the gallery (provided we have a decent balance i.e. men/women, a good spread of nationalities and professions)
2. Something like "Petra Němcová, Czech model" is a basic, neutral caption. On the other hand "Tom Regan, American philosopher specializing in animal rights" is a promotional caption, and "Tom Regan, American philosopher" would suffice.

Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Betty, thanks for discussing the issue rather than [attacking me personally]. I thought exactly like you, that a simple statement of occupation would be suitable for the picture captions. The problem with this, in my opinion, is that we already have the occupation in the list so we would just duplicate the same words. Of course, in practice, they would not be the same words unless someone made it their job to keep them the same, so we end up with an encyclopedia with two different occupations for the same person.

The article is entitled 'List of vegans', and in my opinion that is exactly what it should be, we already have links to every person in the list so anyone interested can find out more about them. This article is not intended to be a 'Vegan showcase' where the variety, success, and beauty of vegans is displayed to the world. Even the brief descriptions that you suggest, all lists of minority groups are likely to be promotional of that group just because we tend not to have lists like 'List of omnivores', and there would be no point in starting such groups because they would effectivley be just a 'Lists of most people'. By the very nature of things lists tend to promote minorities.

This may not be the worst example of lists being used for promotional purposes but I seem to have landed here and try to do my best to keep this bit of WP neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Appropriate title?

Should the article be titled "List of notable vegans" or maybe "List of vegan celebrities?" Aylissa-S (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)