Talk:List of vegetarians

Nietzsche Vegetarian

Nietzsche was a vegetarian, in severals biography book about the philosopher say that, but when I put this in the List someone delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.83.247.16 (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted it because you referenced a geocities website. Personal websites/blogs etc are not valid sources wherever they get the information from. If you have the book details i.e. author, title, year of publication, publisher, page number then add the book references instead because those would be acceptable references. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please add a new section on the BOTTOM of the list. Thanks. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Title of the Page

This point may sound somewhat trivial, but the title of this page should be changed to something like "List of prominent Vegetarians". --Ankurtg (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well you have a point, I'm not even sure whether we should call it "List of...". Both IVU and Happy Cow which this page sources a lot simply call their lists "Famous vegetarians". I would certainly back a name change to "Famous vegetarians" if everyone else agrees. Betty Logan (talk) 03:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I Object. I strongly disagree. Why don't you name this article Vegetarian Elites like sup mas Ching Hai? Of course not! Wikipedia has lots of lists, like List of English Novelists or whatnot. It belongs to a Wikipedia list. Its name must not be changed to anything without a 'list of...'!Kayau (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, get used to using * in this section because it is likely to turn into a pretty long discussion. Kayau (talk) 10:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• So it doesn't... And see this.
• Right, I understand the convention. It makes it easy to find the article and provides a sense of uniformity. What about changing it to "List of Prominent/Famous Vegetarians" as I initially suggested? Does it fit into the scheme? Because it does sound a lot more logical. --Ankurtg (talk) 04:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

A Curious Problem

Umm... I've received an email from a famous person with her own article, and she told me that she's vegan. However, there are no other references availableon the internet to prove it. Are there no ways that I can I put that person on the list? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 03:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they would be permissable. When I joined Wikipedia I tried referencing letters published on a beer enthusiast site but they were removed because they weren't a 'published' source. You could ask at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard and see what they have to say. Betty Logan (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. (By the way, you sound less confident than before. Try to sound like you used to, before the Chinese refs thing!) All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 01:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

See Also section move

Now, we don't expect people to fish around for the see also section that is sandwiched between a long list and an even longer ref-list. So, I would like to suggest moving the See Also section after the introduction. Here is an extraxt from a Wikipedia guildline: "When the list includes a short introduction and a longer list, it may be advisible to include a "See also" section, that shows related lists and articles, after the introduction and before the list." Please consider moving up the see also section. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way. There is a "See also" already at the top so if you want to group them all together I don't have any objection. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I put the see also there, and that was exactly my intention. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

There is some controversy with Jackson's vegetariansim. Some say that he's a flexitarian (ie someone who occasionaly cheats a bit, and eat meat.) Do you think a dispute tag should be placed? Reference: Vegan World News All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 11:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

That is personal blog posting so isn't a verifiable reference. However, if a reputable article can be found challenging Jacko's veggie status then it should be included and he should be tarred and feathered with a 'disputed' tag. Betty Logan (talk) 12:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

You call him 'Jacko'? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:40, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The first ref stating Jackson's vegetarianism was not stated properly, and must be adjusted. The second ref, an external link, was a gossip website and didn't really say much. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blogs aren't reliable, but the IVU sure is: [1] All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 15:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The IVU ref is fine. Betty Logan (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Master Television vs. Gods Direct Contact

Unlike god's dir. con., sup. mas. tv is run by sup. mas. Ching Hai's disciples, and provide enough evidence to support their vegetarianism. Some episodes even interview the vegetarians/vegans. And they didn't even say that Louisa was vegetarian in Louisa's episode of Models of Success. Should sup. mas. tv become a reliable source? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 14:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that reports run by Supreme Master TV are generally not verifiable sources because it is not a source of objective journalism or a recognised vegetarian authority, except in cases where they interview the person in question and the person clearly identifies themselves as vegetarian either by stating it or implicitly suggesting it by discussing their diet. In that case I would say that Supreme Masters TV is a satisfactory primary source. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson

A certain IP would like to add the following person to the list:

• Lisa Simpson

There were no references, however, and it was not even listed properly (Simpson starts with an S, but it was put betweem two Adams!). If anyone is able to find a suitable reference, please restore it to the list. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 00:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

David Pearce

• David Pearce

I would like to contest David Pearce. I have not removed him from the list, but I would like to challenge his veganism: the reference simply said that he was vegan, without any evidence whatsoever. Any comments? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 10:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all Kayau, if you are not satisfied by the verifibility and reliability of a reference you are perfectly entitled to remove it. Additions to the list are done through consensus. Secondly, a veriable source does not have to present 'evidence' (although it is nice to knowe here they get the information from) - after all they are the evidence! For instance, the IVU doesn't present evidence for all its names but they are permitted on here because IVU is a verifiable source. That is we accept it as being accurate in most cases, and an authority on vegetarianism. The question here is the Lifeboat Foundation a verifiable source? It is certainly not a verifiable third party source since it is not a recognised authority on vegetarianism and it is not a recognised journalistic source for reporting facts, so on the basis of that I think he should be removed or the reference replaced. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced the reference with an interview from his own website. Betty Logan (talk) 12:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Featured List (continued)

Miss Logan, do you mean that all the refs should be formatted with the {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, etc. citations? I didn't quite get it. Thanks. All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 07:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Well it doesn't have to be done that way, there are many different referencing styles. It's more to do with the actual information the references contain. The problem with web references is that many people use hyperlinks with the name of the page, and the reference doesn't show the url. Obviously you can just click the link, but I firmly believe you should be able to see the actual web address. For instance, if someone printed out the list the hyperlinks wouldn't work so the reference would be useless so the references should actually show the web address. In the case of books/articles the reference should also show the authors name as well, along with the publication date if available and the date it was accessed. For example if you look at the Mandy Smith reference, you could track down that information by just copying the reference out. However the one above it just gives a number (completely useless as a reference) and the one below it that just gives the title of the web page but not the address isn't much better. A reference is supposed to give the reader enough information to track down the source. The thing with the cite templates is that sometimes people want to include information that they don't accommodate so I'm against insisting on one specific style, but it would be better if there was some mimimal criteria for the references. Web addresses should be actually shown like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetarians rather than List of vegetarians or [2], the name of the author if there is one, and the name of the company/organisation, date of publication (if available), access date, and a page number for book references. All the references should be sorted by the author's surname like proper academic or book references. Betty Logan (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I can recall seeing a Wikipedia guideline about references. I don't remember where it is, but you're the pro when it comes to references (and being pretty pernicketty about it! No, being nit-picking isn't always bad.) Maybe you could add a new reference guideline for use of the Veggie List ONLY. About the websites, I cannot bring myself to completely agree with you, but you have a point. If you give only the URL, I believe people might have difficulty trying the figure out where that source is from. We don't mind, but others might not know immediately what IVU stands for. In Vehicle Units or the Irish Veterinary Union aren't exactly reliable sources. (The use of humour isn't bad - there's a plenty of it at WikiProject Wikipedia Awards!) Kayau Jane Eyre PRIDE AND PREJUDICE les miserables 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the name of the site or the article should be excluded, rather that the url should also be clear. For instance a happycow reference could look like "Happy Cow. 1999. HappyCow's Famous Vegetarians. [Online] (Updated 2009) Available at http://www.happycow.net/famous_vegetarians.html. [Accessed 15 July 2009</nowiki>]". Betty Logan (talk) 08:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations for World Wide Web articles typically include:

• the name of the author or authors,
• the title of the article in quotes,
• the name of the website (linked to a Wikipedia article about the site if it exists, or to *Website's "about page"),
• date of publication,
• page number(s) (if applicable),
• the date you retrieved it (invisible to the reader if the article has a date of publication),
• an optional short quote (used rarely, if the source is likely to be challenged)

(adapted from a guideline.) See, no URL. Kayau |Jane Eyre| PRIDE AND PREJUDICE| les miserables 02:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but I think that's a shortcoming in the policy. For instance, if all you had was a printout of the list then you would not have the url. Or similarly if someone wants to use the information and wants to copy the references over. I can think of many scenarios where people would need the url as part of the reference. I personally favour academic referencing which gives all the information - you would never find a reference in a university e-journal that doesn't give the url. I also think retrieval dates should be included even if the article has a publication date because websites especially get updated all the time. The information you are sourcing may be different to the information at the time of publication. Betty Logan (talk) 02:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are right. Why don't you ask in the help desk? Help desks won't bite.

Kayau |Jane Eyre| PRIDE AND PREJUDICE| les miserables 05:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just my opinion. It's up to Wikipedia how it does its own references. Betty Logan (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but this just might help: [3] Kayau David Copperfield MOBY DICK the great gatsby 02:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Confucius

The webpage quoted as source ( http://www.ivu.org/history/east/china.html) is not particularly reliable, vide: "The China, Cung Kuo or Zhong Guo (Zhong means Center and Guo means Country), The Center Country, has a long vegetarian history since beginning. Unfortunately, there is no book to prove it[sic]" In "Analects" there are numerous references to Confucious consuming meat, eg: “食不厌精,脍不厌细。” He did not dislike to have his rice finely cleaned, nor to have his mince meat cut quite small. English translation above is by James Legge, it is available online: http://www.sacred-texts.com/cfu/conf1.htm . You can search the text and see multiple references to Confucius eating meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yds bis (talk • contribs) 07:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The IVU is accepted as a verifiable source, so for that reason Confucious is included. If you want to challenge it you will have to find references countering the claim that Confucious is vegetarian and add a disputed tag. DO NOT remove names that are cited using a verifiable source. Betty Logan (talk) 08:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

fksh