- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Disagreement whether to delete/redirect or keep, although trending toward the latter. Sandstein 11:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Carnism
AfDs for this article:
- Carnism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. This article also has severe neutrality issues. It's close to needing a fundamental rewrite and being eligible for speedy deletion, but not quite there. Prior to this being created as an article a few days back, it was a redirect to Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, but I don't see the need for that redirect to exist. (nomination since withdrawn) ~ Rob Talk 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Never been motivated to perform an edit on Wikipedia before, but the flat out bias this one showed prompted me. Sorry if procedure was not followed correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.151.68 ( talk) 11:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: For procedural reasons, a full discussion should likely occur. Even if everyone agrees that the article shouldn't remain (as per previous deletion discussions), there still needs to be a discussion on whether the redirect should remain. ~ Rob Talk 11:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP: My reasons are discussed here. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: With no sources cited, this is an easy article to decide. Put ideology aside, follow the policies, delete. Pete unseth ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So we need a source for EVERYTHING? Oh, come on. There's an entire fucking WEBSITE and organization devoted to carnism.
[1] How does this not count as a source? It's 2015, print is going out of fashion.
Here's proof carnism is becoming a legit/valid word.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- We need a source for everything, yes. Wikipedia has a core policy of Verifiability and guidelines for Notability (quasi-objective standards for what subjects merit articles, deferring to coverage in reliable sources rather than simply going by editor opinion). It's not that the website about carnism is an unusable source, but it's not a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The sources don't have to be print, but it also can't just be any website. See WP:RS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So we need a source for EVERYTHING? Oh, come on. There's an entire fucking WEBSITE and organization devoted to carnism.
[1] How does this not count as a source? It's 2015, print is going out of fashion.
Here's proof carnism is becoming a legit/valid word.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect Word seems to be a coinage of Melanie Joy, author of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, and is explained in that article. I'm not convinced it represents a notable concept beyond vegan rhetoric (or its flipside, conventional discussions of human diet and nutrition), but people may seek a definition. Article is biased, though in itself that's not reason for deletion: non-notability and duplication with other vegan articles are more crucial. Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the human race isn't allowed to create new terms for ideas and philosophies? Saving millions of innocent sentient beings isn't a "NOTABLE" concept and "WORTHWHILE" cause by having people realize what carnism is? ALL new ideas, concepts and beliefs start somewhere. In addition:
[2]
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (as well as what notability means, because it doesn't just mean "important"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the human race isn't allowed to create new terms for ideas and philosophies? Saving millions of innocent sentient beings isn't a "NOTABLE" concept and "WORTHWHILE" cause by having people realize what carnism is? ALL new ideas, concepts and beliefs start somewhere. In addition:
[2]
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy redirect and full protect consensus at the last AfD was to salt it. This concept has no hope of passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Delete as non-notable. May as well leave a redirect. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)see below. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Carnism, as an ideology, is EXTREMELY notable.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prove it.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, prove it passes
WP:GNG, your subjective beliefs do not make things notable.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a shitload of articles about carnism if you Google Search it. It gives me 76,200 results!
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's yet another "argument to avoid". There are lots of ghits for lots of things that aren't notable. The only persuasive argument here is to link to actual sources. Look at the list I compiled at User:Rhododendrites/Carnism. I think that list alone satisfies WP:GNG, but if you know of other reliable publications which are not written by Joy, which are not found on advocacy websites or papers/magazines, and which talk about carnism substantively (more than a sentence or two -- not just a passing mention), then link to them here. That's the only way you will convince people. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a shitload of articles about carnism if you Google Search it. It gives me 76,200 results!
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, prove it passes
WP:GNG, your subjective beliefs do not make things notable.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prove it.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirect and protect per above (fails GNG). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect as it fails GNG. All the shouting in the world is not going to change that. BTW you can't save something that has already been murdered. Looks like we have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situation. MarnetteD| Talk 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail GNG, there's 76,200 Google Search results for it, plenty of news articles on it, blogs about it, and an entire website dedicated to it. Also, "you can't save something that has already been murdered."? What a jerkass comment. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 15:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I struck my Redirect !vote above. Clearly I did a poor job of looking for sources before adding that, perhaps influenced negatively by the IP's soapboxing. Now that I've looked for sources myself, it's clear this is a keep.
- Since the article is indeed currently pretty poor in that it doesn't really cite any reliable sources, just in case this heads to WP:TNT, I've created User:Rhododendrites/Carnism, where I've also listed many sources.
- If anything, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows should be merged into this article, not the other way around. Joy did coin the term, buy 9 years beforehand, and while there's a concentration of sources around the publication of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (as the most popular and focused treatment of the concept), there are also sources which predate it and others that don't mention it. Absent the significance it would hold if it were where the term were coined, since there are far more sources on carnism than on the book (since you also cannot talk about the book without talking about carnism), carnism is easily the more notable topic. Since Melanie Joy is so closely tied to the concept, there's an argument to be made that she is the more notable subject, but an article about her would be dominated by talk about carnism. So there is clearly a notable subject here, and I think it's carnism.
- Please see the list of sources at User:Rhododendrites/Carnism — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble finding the sources which discuss it independently of the book and aren't blogs. Could you point some out? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect and protect. In April 2013, I covered the points raised by Rhododendrites in his keep vote at Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows#WP:BEFORE. Unlike an article on "Carnism", the book is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book; the book is considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to the animal rights movement literature; and the book is the subject of instruction at several different schools. Unfortunately, the unreferenced version of Carnism is not sufficient for an article. While I appreciate Rhododendrites' attempt to create a new stub to support an article on carnism, it fails to use reliable secondary sources, as it is currently sourced to primary and tertiary sources. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows is based on reliable secondary sources, hence the reason for the redirect. I've consistently maintained that if and when someone can write a reliably sourced article about carnism, it should be split out of the book article, not before. Until then, policy supports redirecting neologisms and dictionary definitions to their parent topics, which in this particular instance (regardless of the date the term was originated) is the book article. Viriditas ( talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why do we have to wipe out the article? Why can't we just insert a "This article needs more sources and references" template on it? To me, that's a much more logical solution.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 18:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- We don't have to wipe out an article. You are free to move it to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation or register an account and create a subpage to work on it further. Viriditas ( talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or Speedy Redirect but do not protect. The topic very clearly passes GNG. Here are some sources independent of Joy that discuss the topic:
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12], [13]. There is more than enough to write an article here, although the current one is entirely unreferenced and needs to be re-started from scratch. I struck a source by Joy which was accidentally included. However, including her work, which has been widely cited, we have several more sources. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. It can be stubbified until sources are added. There are academic sources, apart from Melanie Joy who coined the term, e.g. this essay in Joshua Frye, Michael S. Bruner (eds.), The Rhetoric of Food: Discourse, Materiality, and Power, Routledge, 2012; and Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies, Columbia University Press, 2012 (Google Books gives no page number). 1,230 entries on Google Books; six mentions on JSTOR; several on Google Scholar. Sarah (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect. Good work by the contributors above to hunt up some decent sources, but most of them mention carnism & go on to mention the Melanie Joy book. I don't see much in the way of separate coverage. However, I do not support protect. BTW, the book has a fine article so no merge required. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 22:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
*Redirect, happy to change my !vote if somebody is able to find some independent sources that describe the term fully, not just use it.Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have completely rewritten the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 08:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, now that Sammy1339 has done a very impressive rewrite with sources and information. Thumbs up to him/her! | Naypta talk opened his mouth at 08:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect. A book and a few people writing about that book isn't notable, however strongly a minority of people feel about the issue. 94.15.202.110 ( talk) 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep after Sammy1339's rewrite overwhelmingly established general notability. This article itself ought to end this discussion. I think the POV of the article, while immensely improved, isn't yet perfectly neutral; however, that's not a deletion rationale. FourViolas ( talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: The Carnism article is an attack page about a topic that was named by opponents of Carnism for use as a disparaging term. The only mention of any support for Carnism is mention of arguments chosen for their weakness by opponents to Carnism to be shot down as straw men. There is no input to this article from any of the group that supports what is being called Carnism, the majority of people on the planet.
- According to
WP:Attack, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." The problem is that it would retain the disparaging term. Better the article should be deleted and replaced by mention in the article on Vegetarianism that some vegetarians (with the names of two) have made an effort to have the eating of meat called Carnism. -
Fartherred (
talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- A meat eater is called a carnivore. Carnism is essentially the psychology of a human carnivore. How is that a problem? Viriditas ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- The article does need balancing with defenses of carnism, where they can be appropriately sourced. However, that's more of a NPOV problem.
WP:Attack, as I understand it, is primarily a defense against poorly-sourced negative BLPs; as an example of articles which portray their topics negatively because that's how the RS which discuss them treat them, see
child labour or
sexual assault.
FourViolas (
talk) 23:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: That you and the article see sexual assault and meat eating as comparable activities requiring a similar level of support for them in articles about them is the problem. Sexual assault is a crime. There will be no reliable sources supporting sexual assault as if it were a legal option. Meat eating is a part of everyday life for the majority of people. There are reliable sources that defend it. There would be more if more people thought there were any opposition to the practice that required a defense. In Genesis 18:7 Abraham had his servant cook a calf for visitors. Would FourViolas intend that Abraham's actions should be morally comparable to a sexual assault?
- I am a meat eater but I am not a carnivore, I am an omnivore. I have no need to justify my eating of meat. I woud agree that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary and nice, but it is Psychological experts that bring up these terms in articles referred to supporting that Carnism some aberration of modern society. It is an aberration of Psychological experts who are looking for a reason to oppose the eating of meat. Psychological experts should stick to psychology. Their ideas about the morality of eating meat are no more scholarly that the ideas of the butcher. The Psychologists should mind their own business and avoid making derogatory comments about meat eaters. They should not be cited as experts on the morality of eating meat. -
Fartherred (
talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I thought I had made my point clear. For the record, I don't think carnivory is morally comparable to rape; I was just pointing out that "balancing the views of all RS" is not the same as "balancing positive and negative views". I just added some reliable sources' arguments in favor of the morality of eating meat. Philosophers who get themselves published in scholarly journals of ethics are acceptable sources for an article about an ethical debate. FourViolas ( talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to
WP:Attack, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." The problem is that it would retain the disparaging term. Better the article should be deleted and replaced by mention in the article on Vegetarianism that some vegetarians (with the names of two) have made an effort to have the eating of meat called Carnism. -
Fartherred (
talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: How can one call the article well sourced when it has a statement like this: "Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs." without any citation. In what jurisdiction is it legal to raise butcher and cook pigs, but not legal to raise butcher and cook dogs? There are people who raise pigs as pets within a city but cannot butcher them because agriculture is not allowed in the city.
- Reply: There are very few articles where EVERY statement is sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability states merely that things should be verifiable, not necessarily verified. Clearly an insufficient basis for deletion, or there would be few articles left if we followed that view more widely! Edwardx ( talk) 10:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: How can one call the article well sourced when it has a statement like this: "Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs." without any citation. In what jurisdiction is it legal to raise butcher and cook pigs, but not legal to raise butcher and cook dogs? There are people who raise pigs as pets within a city but cannot butcher them because agriculture is not allowed in the city.
- Keep change from redirect, the article is well written and sourced in its current state. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I withdraw my nomination. This article has been expanded from "carnism as a word to describe vegan outrage towards most people" to a more complete and neutral debate regarding the ethics of eating meat. I still think it has some neutrality issues, but the expanded article and definition of carnism meets GNG. ~ Rob Talk 04:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (and I voted delete at the last AfD). A classic example of a neologism finally coming into the mainstream. EEng ( talk) 04:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that the entire article has an overhaul, the consensus has decided to keep it.
- 9 KEEP
- 3 DELETE
- 6 REDIRECT
Please note that some of the "delete" and "redirect" votes were made before the overhaul, so I don't think they count anymore. Thanks to all those who contributed to improve the article. Further improvements can be made at the Talk page. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 09:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Involved editors cannot close this discussion, not to mention that the discussion should remain open for 7 days. See WP:NAC for an essay on non-admin closures. ~ Rob Talk 10:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whateeeeveeeeer. You said "I withdraw my nomination" and you proposed this deletion in the first place, so I figured it was over. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 10:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Melanie Joy writes: "We love dogs and eat cows not because dogs and cows are fundamentally different – cows, like dogs, have feelings, preferences, and consciousness – but because our perception of them is different." Melanie Joy seems to think people in general fail to see things as they are but she can set us straight. There are fundamental differences between cows and dogs regarding their suitability as pets or meat animals. Dogs consume more expensive food than cows and are therefore less efficient as meat animals. Cows are larger and more difficult to care for in a domestic situation than dogs so cows are less convenient as pets. These differences, and perhaps many more, have resulted in laws being written confirming the differences already inherent in nature. Melanie Joy's disregard for facts is typical of the militant vegetarians who seem to be intent on convincing society in general to forego eating meat. As IP 174.2.98.24 writes: "Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do." I have no moral difficulty shooting a deer or killing an inconvenient cat or dog, but I do have difficulty with tolerating the ranting of militant vegetarians.
- Their sort of illogic and emotionalism is likely to cause much trouble for innocent vegetarians who just want to live in peace and not change the world. People writing on Wikipedia can hide behind a user name, but if people start suggesting changes in ordinances and laws to prevent butchery, the businesses catering to vegetarians will not be able to hide. There are many people who are not as rational and easy going as myself who might decide to fight against vegetarians rather than argue against the militant vegetarian propaganda. If one has concern for peace, tranquility, and the common good; one should vote to delete this article. -
Fartherred (
talk) 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy, but it's now notable idiocy, and that's all that matters for the purposes of this discussion.
EEng (
talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that fanning the flames of dispute will not likely result from this article, that provoking anger is unimportant, or that pure adherence to Wikipedia policy is all that matters, come what may. -
Fartherred (
talk) 05:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- With limited exceptions to which this doesn't even begin to rise, yes. We don't advocate controversial ideas, but neither do we censor them. And dispute is healthy—it's how societies decide the important issues facing them. As the great Clark Kerr said in a somewhat similar context, "The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views."
- And anyway, you're being ridiculously overdramatic—these are vegans, not Nazis or KKKers. Now please stop acting like you don't understand the principle, because it's obvious you do. EEng ( talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that fanning the flames of dispute will not likely result from this article, that provoking anger is unimportant, or that pure adherence to Wikipedia policy is all that matters, come what may. -
Fartherred (
talk) 05:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy, but it's now notable idiocy, and that's all that matters for the purposes of this discussion.
EEng (
talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pay attention to reality. I never wrote that vegans are Nazis or KKKers nor implied any such thing. The malicious attacks by people opposed to the fur trade against anyone wearing fur are well known. They committed arsons and vandalism against animal research operations. Only some of the perpetrators were caught. If you were to not see the similarity to anti meat-eating propaganda, I would suspect intentional blindness. By the way, what principle do you suggest that I am pretending to no understand? -
Fartherred (
talk) 06:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Snore. Of course I see the similarity. As stated earlier I think Joy's an idiot, but that's irrelevant for present purposes. And I didn't say you wrote that vegans are Nazis or KKKers. I implied that you're overreacting to a ridiculous extent—an extent which I am parodying as being suitable to the reaction to those extreme ideologies.
- As a modestly experienced editor you certainly must be familiar with
WP:NOTCENSORED. I think further interaction will be unproductive, so if you want to have the last word now, please be my guest.
EEng (
talk) 06:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sleep on, fellow editor EEng. While the WP:NOTCENSORED policy allows content that does not adhere to general social norms, it does not require such content. I suggest that we ignore all rules and delete the Carnism article because it would be better for society in general to do so.
- There is no chance whatever that propaganda from vegetarians and vegans is going to convince the whole society to stop eating meat in the next fifty years. There is a chance of such propaganda causing conflict in which the weaker group will suffer the most. Without the Wikipedia article, "Carnism" is likely to be just a matter of temporary interest in newspapers and magazines. Keeping the article makes it more likely that a glowing ember will ignite some violent conflict.
- As I have written, Wikipedia editors can bravely hide behind their user names, but others are not so lucky. People who have compassion for animals ought to have compassion for people too. -
Fartherred (
talk) 07:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- "People who have compassion for animals ought to have compassion for people too." LOL, no. I hate the majority of humanity. I believe humans are power-hungry creatures capable of nothing but tyranny, destruction, conquest, slaughter, killing, war and violence - fighting over land, territory, resources and property - driven by primitive instincts and impulses and incapable of higher thought and consciousness. When I look at humanity, I see anger, greed, blame, hate, selfishness, superficiality, jealousy, envy, lust, materialism. I have no respect for the majority of humanity. Humans are like a cancer, destroying the Earth and killing its animals. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 10:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not for political advocacy. The only manner in which we are concerned with bettering society is by providing a complete and free repository of information. While I know you didn't bring them up, it's also interesting to note that we have articles on
Nazis, the
KKK, and
many
other
hate
groups. ~
Rob
Talk 08:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to imply that my suggestion to delete the Carnism article is more political advocacy that the efforts of proponents to keep it?
Let me warn specifically of two sorts of difficulty to which this article could lead. Meat-eaters could take offense at their normal opinions about eating meat being referred to as a psychological mechanism for coping with supposed guilt. But more important they might think the militant vegetarians are heartless brutes for promoting a policy which would remove from many of the poor the only source of vitamin B-12 that they have. Recriminations would not likely fall so much upon the Wikipedia editors hiding behind their user names, but on vegetarians in general. Secondly, the proponents of this article might not like the way meat eaters edit it. It is on record that it is possible for a Wikipedia editor to think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy. It is possible for such an attitude to be reflected in edits without obviously violating Wikipedia policies. I am calling on proponents of keeping "Carnism" to reverse their stands for the common good. -
Fartherred (
talk) 10:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not judging the motivations of "Keep" noms at all, but their position is supported by policy, whereas yours is "for the greater good". Wikipedia does not exist solely for the greater good, although it certainly does some good by making information available online for free. ~
Rob
Talk 10:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is for a better encyclopedia that a small minority group not use Wikipedia to promote a word fashioned in a way that provokes their opponents, and causes dissention. I think that this is a case worthy of ignoring all rules, but if you disagree, that is your decision. Dissention is the most that militant vegetarians can get. Per capita meat consumption is in the neighborhood of 40 kilograms (88 pounds) per year. with the world population near 8 billion that is about 300 million metric tons per year. That industry is not about to cheerfully close up shop because some psychologists write that people need a coping mechanism to deal with guilt from eating meat. This article can only cause trouble by making Carnism a word which it would not be without Wikipedia's help. Whoever closes this AfD must follow policy, but those who have been promoting it are under no obligation to dig in their heals. They could come around, and ignore all rules is a sufficient reason to favor delete in this circumstance. -
Fartherred (
talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- IAR is unlikely to be a successful argument when you don't have a consensus on your side; you're essentially arguing that WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. FourViolas ( talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is for a better encyclopedia that a small minority group not use Wikipedia to promote a word fashioned in a way that provokes their opponents, and causes dissention. I think that this is a case worthy of ignoring all rules, but if you disagree, that is your decision. Dissention is the most that militant vegetarians can get. Per capita meat consumption is in the neighborhood of 40 kilograms (88 pounds) per year. with the world population near 8 billion that is about 300 million metric tons per year. That industry is not about to cheerfully close up shop because some psychologists write that people need a coping mechanism to deal with guilt from eating meat. This article can only cause trouble by making Carnism a word which it would not be without Wikipedia's help. Whoever closes this AfD must follow policy, but those who have been promoting it are under no obligation to dig in their heals. They could come around, and ignore all rules is a sufficient reason to favor delete in this circumstance. -
Fartherred (
talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The word "carnism" is used and the concept described in a reliable secondary source dictionary (see ref #3 in the article). This makes it verifiable and guite likely, notable. I am an experienced biologist with an interest in food-animal welfare, however, I have not heard of this word before today. I have been educated. Surely that is the most fundamental purpose of this project.DrChrissy (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This article has been considerably reworked over the last few days. Editors who !voted earlier in this thread may wish to reconsider their !vote and make the closer's job easier by striking their votes if they so wish.DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed: I'm actually going to take the liberty of pinging
Pete unseth,
Colapeninsula,
Cas Liber,
Doctorhawkes,
MarnetteD, and
Kharkiv07 (the editors who opposed before the rewrite began and haven't been discussing since). Hope this isn't some kind of inverse
WP:CANVASSING faux pas.
FourViolas (
talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
User:FourViolas I am certainly not going to raise this as an issue, but it might be more neutral to ping all early voters, regardless of whether they opposed or supported. That way there can be no accusation of canvassing.DrChrissy
(talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but actually (if I'm timing
User:Rhododendrites's comments right) everyone who voted "keep" pre-rewrite has already weighed in post-. Good catch, though!
FourViolas (
talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, at the end of the day we have a widespread practice - eating meat - which is conducted by billions of people, most of which probably don't think too much about it. Some have been conditioned by ignorance, but not in an overly machivellian way, and some probably know more and accept - whatever. We have a term, albeit a convenient and sensible one, that has been tacked onto this situation by a person that has gained a small degree of traction so that it is now according to our guidelines (just) notable but by no means broadly accepted or recognised. We have a huge and notable subject matter - the eating of meat versus abstaining from it - which absolutely deserves discussion. The tacking on of the term to the discussion grossly misrepresents the reality of the (neologic) word's relationship to the concept as a whole. I agree that by GNG I can't really vote delete on a policy-based ground, but my preference would be to merge with vegetarianism or (better) merge with Ethics of eating meat Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but actually (if I'm timing
User:Rhododendrites's comments right) everyone who voted "keep" pre-rewrite has already weighed in post-. Good catch, though!
FourViolas (
talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
User:FourViolas I am certainly not going to raise this as an issue, but it might be more neutral to ping all early voters, regardless of whether they opposed or supported. That way there can be no accusation of canvassing.DrChrissy
(talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- comment. Thanks for the ping. Look, I still favour redirect, only because the refs (that I can see) still tie carnism to the book. That said, the article is well written and sourced and strives to be impartial. I would be surprised if it wasn't kept. The contributors should be congratulated. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP: Due to considerable work on the article over the last few days.DrChrissy (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Admin closure
It's been 7 days and the consensus is still KEEP, can we please have an admin close this discussion now? 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 09:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Be patient. Apologies: someone ought to have pointed you to the
WP:Guide to deletion by now. The relevant section of that is
WP:GD#Closure.
FourViolas (
talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- dear IP (and everyone), what distinguishes the narrowly-recognised
carnism from
Ethics of eating meat......apart from the name?
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is some overlap in proponents of carnism and those pushing an anti-meat-eating POV (not on Wikipedia, I mean in the actual debate). But carnism is the idea that there exists an apparent contradiction between loving one species of animal but killing and eating another, with the difference between "pet" and "meat" decided simply by cultural values. As an idea, it doesn't address the ethics of this contradiction, just its existence. Things get a lot more messy when you look at actual debate, where those who bring up the idea of carnism are using this idea as part of the argument regarding ethics of meat eating. They're technically distinct, though. This is all as I understand it; feel free to correct me. ~ Rob Talk 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- dear IP (and everyone), what distinguishes the narrowly-recognised
carnism from
Ethics of eating meat......apart from the name?
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- We're trying to pin it down at
Talk:Carnism#Definition_is_confused. The sources agree it's the
belief system
which supports meat-eating, including cultural tradition and contemporary psychology. All the sources who use the term are particularly interested in the "meat paradox", the friend/food dichotomy Rob brought up.
- We're trying to pin it down at
Talk:Carnism#Definition_is_confused. The sources agree it's the
- I think of it as theory vs. practice:
ethics of eating meat is for philosophers to derive abstract conceptions of morality and determine whether flesh-eating violates them, while
carnism is for describing how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis.
FourViolas (
talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- See I could easily swap those. Carnism as a theory and ethics as to how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis. I think portraying/discussing the whole topic is made worse by arbitrarily slicing it into two separate articles. If carnism was a paragraph in the ethics article it would also more accurately portray its relationship to the whole debate.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- To me the break is cultural vs. philosophical. Carnism looks at meat eating as an example of how cultural values operate, whereas the ethics of meat eating is a purely philosophical argument about ethics. To me, those are very distinct lenses through which to examine the issue, and they warrant two articles. ~ Rob Talk 00:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- See I could easily swap those. Carnism as a theory and ethics as to how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis. I think portraying/discussing the whole topic is made worse by arbitrarily slicing it into two separate articles. If carnism was a paragraph in the ethics article it would also more accurately portray its relationship to the whole debate.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think of it as theory vs. practice:
ethics of eating meat is for philosophers to derive abstract conceptions of morality and determine whether flesh-eating violates them, while
carnism is for describing how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis.
FourViolas (
talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources in the section I linked are close to unanimous. Having spent quite a bit of time reading through the sources for both articles, it seems clear that carnism, like ethnocentrism, is a mindset and a set of psychological phenomena, while "ethics of eating meat" is what it sounds like—an ethical debate, among philosophers, about whether killing animals for food is compatible with morality. Would you like me to set out definitional quotes here?
- Despite that distinction, if [[ethics]] were less extensive I'd advocate merging it into carnism, as a big section called something like "Ethical critique and defense of carnism". FourViolas ( talk) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Disagreement whether to delete/redirect or keep, although trending toward the latter. Sandstein 11:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Carnism
AfDs for this article:
- Carnism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage in reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. This article also has severe neutrality issues. It's close to needing a fundamental rewrite and being eligible for speedy deletion, but not quite there. Prior to this being created as an article a few days back, it was a redirect to Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, but I don't see the need for that redirect to exist. (nomination since withdrawn) ~ Rob Talk 11:34, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Never been motivated to perform an edit on Wikipedia before, but the flat out bias this one showed prompted me. Sorry if procedure was not followed correctly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.151.68 ( talk) 11:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: For procedural reasons, a full discussion should likely occur. Even if everyone agrees that the article shouldn't remain (as per previous deletion discussions), there still needs to be a discussion on whether the redirect should remain. ~ Rob Talk 11:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- KEEP: My reasons are discussed here. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 11:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: With no sources cited, this is an easy article to decide. Put ideology aside, follow the policies, delete. Pete unseth ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So we need a source for EVERYTHING? Oh, come on. There's an entire fucking WEBSITE and organization devoted to carnism.
[1] How does this not count as a source? It's 2015, print is going out of fashion.
Here's proof carnism is becoming a legit/valid word.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- We need a source for everything, yes. Wikipedia has a core policy of Verifiability and guidelines for Notability (quasi-objective standards for what subjects merit articles, deferring to coverage in reliable sources rather than simply going by editor opinion). It's not that the website about carnism is an unusable source, but it's not a publication with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The sources don't have to be print, but it also can't just be any website. See WP:RS. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So we need a source for EVERYTHING? Oh, come on. There's an entire fucking WEBSITE and organization devoted to carnism.
[1] How does this not count as a source? It's 2015, print is going out of fashion.
Here's proof carnism is becoming a legit/valid word.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect Word seems to be a coinage of Melanie Joy, author of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, and is explained in that article. I'm not convinced it represents a notable concept beyond vegan rhetoric (or its flipside, conventional discussions of human diet and nutrition), but people may seek a definition. Article is biased, though in itself that's not reason for deletion: non-notability and duplication with other vegan articles are more crucial. Colapeninsula ( talk) 13:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the human race isn't allowed to create new terms for ideas and philosophies? Saving millions of innocent sentient beings isn't a "NOTABLE" concept and "WORTHWHILE" cause by having people realize what carnism is? ALL new ideas, concepts and beliefs start somewhere. In addition:
[2]
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- You may want to read Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (as well as what notability means, because it doesn't just mean "important"). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- So the human race isn't allowed to create new terms for ideas and philosophies? Saving millions of innocent sentient beings isn't a "NOTABLE" concept and "WORTHWHILE" cause by having people realize what carnism is? ALL new ideas, concepts and beliefs start somewhere. In addition:
[2]
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy redirect and full protect consensus at the last AfD was to salt it. This concept has no hope of passing WP:GNG. Winner 42 Talk to me! 14:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Delete as non-notable. May as well leave a redirect. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 14:33, 3 July 2015 (UTC)see below. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Carnism, as an ideology, is EXTREMELY notable.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prove it.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, prove it passes
WP:GNG, your subjective beliefs do not make things notable.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a shitload of articles about carnism if you Google Search it. It gives me 76,200 results!
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's yet another "argument to avoid". There are lots of ghits for lots of things that aren't notable. The only persuasive argument here is to link to actual sources. Look at the list I compiled at User:Rhododendrites/Carnism. I think that list alone satisfies WP:GNG, but if you know of other reliable publications which are not written by Joy, which are not found on advocacy websites or papers/magazines, and which talk about carnism substantively (more than a sentence or two -- not just a passing mention), then link to them here. That's the only way you will convince people. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- There's a shitload of articles about carnism if you Google Search it. It gives me 76,200 results!
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let me clarify, prove it passes
WP:GNG, your subjective beliefs do not make things notable.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 14:43, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Prove it.
Winner 42
Talk to me! 14:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirect and protect per above (fails GNG). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect as it fails GNG. All the shouting in the world is not going to change that. BTW you can't save something that has already been murdered. Looks like we have a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS situation. MarnetteD| Talk 15:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- It doesn't fail GNG, there's 76,200 Google Search results for it, plenty of news articles on it, blogs about it, and an entire website dedicated to it. Also, "you can't save something that has already been murdered."? What a jerkass comment. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 15:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 15:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I struck my Redirect !vote above. Clearly I did a poor job of looking for sources before adding that, perhaps influenced negatively by the IP's soapboxing. Now that I've looked for sources myself, it's clear this is a keep.
- Since the article is indeed currently pretty poor in that it doesn't really cite any reliable sources, just in case this heads to WP:TNT, I've created User:Rhododendrites/Carnism, where I've also listed many sources.
- If anything, Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows should be merged into this article, not the other way around. Joy did coin the term, buy 9 years beforehand, and while there's a concentration of sources around the publication of Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows (as the most popular and focused treatment of the concept), there are also sources which predate it and others that don't mention it. Absent the significance it would hold if it were where the term were coined, since there are far more sources on carnism than on the book (since you also cannot talk about the book without talking about carnism), carnism is easily the more notable topic. Since Melanie Joy is so closely tied to the concept, there's an argument to be made that she is the more notable subject, but an article about her would be dominated by talk about carnism. So there is clearly a notable subject here, and I think it's carnism.
- Please see the list of sources at User:Rhododendrites/Carnism — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm having trouble finding the sources which discuss it independently of the book and aren't blogs. Could you point some out? Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect and protect. In April 2013, I covered the points raised by Rhododendrites in his keep vote at Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows#WP:BEFORE. Unlike an article on "Carnism", the book is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book; the book is considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to the animal rights movement literature; and the book is the subject of instruction at several different schools. Unfortunately, the unreferenced version of Carnism is not sufficient for an article. While I appreciate Rhododendrites' attempt to create a new stub to support an article on carnism, it fails to use reliable secondary sources, as it is currently sourced to primary and tertiary sources. Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows is based on reliable secondary sources, hence the reason for the redirect. I've consistently maintained that if and when someone can write a reliably sourced article about carnism, it should be split out of the book article, not before. Until then, policy supports redirecting neologisms and dictionary definitions to their parent topics, which in this particular instance (regardless of the date the term was originated) is the book article. Viriditas ( talk) 18:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Why do we have to wipe out the article? Why can't we just insert a "This article needs more sources and references" template on it? To me, that's a much more logical solution.
174.2.98.24 (
talk) 18:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- We don't have to wipe out an article. You are free to move it to Wikipedia:Articles for Creation or register an account and create a subpage to work on it further. Viriditas ( talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep or Speedy Redirect but do not protect. The topic very clearly passes GNG. Here are some sources independent of Joy that discuss the topic:
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
[7],
[8],
[9],
[10],
[11],
[12], [13]. There is more than enough to write an article here, although the current one is entirely unreferenced and needs to be re-started from scratch. I struck a source by Joy which was accidentally included. However, including her work, which has been widely cited, we have several more sources. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 20:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. It can be stubbified until sources are added. There are academic sources, apart from Melanie Joy who coined the term, e.g. this essay in Joshua Frye, Michael S. Bruner (eds.), The Rhetoric of Food: Discourse, Materiality, and Power, Routledge, 2012; and Margo DeMello, Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies, Columbia University Press, 2012 (Google Books gives no page number). 1,230 entries on Google Books; six mentions on JSTOR; several on Google Scholar. Sarah (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect. Good work by the contributors above to hunt up some decent sources, but most of them mention carnism & go on to mention the Melanie Joy book. I don't see much in the way of separate coverage. However, I do not support protect. BTW, the book has a fine article so no merge required. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 22:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
*Redirect, happy to change my !vote if somebody is able to find some independent sources that describe the term fully, not just use it.Kharkiv07 ( T) 01:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment. I have completely rewritten the article. -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 08:37, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, now that Sammy1339 has done a very impressive rewrite with sources and information. Thumbs up to him/her! | Naypta talk opened his mouth at 08:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Redirect. A book and a few people writing about that book isn't notable, however strongly a minority of people feel about the issue. 94.15.202.110 ( talk) 13:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep after Sammy1339's rewrite overwhelmingly established general notability. This article itself ought to end this discussion. I think the POV of the article, while immensely improved, isn't yet perfectly neutral; however, that's not a deletion rationale. FourViolas ( talk) 17:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete: The Carnism article is an attack page about a topic that was named by opponents of Carnism for use as a disparaging term. The only mention of any support for Carnism is mention of arguments chosen for their weakness by opponents to Carnism to be shot down as straw men. There is no input to this article from any of the group that supports what is being called Carnism, the majority of people on the planet.
- According to
WP:Attack, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." The problem is that it would retain the disparaging term. Better the article should be deleted and replaced by mention in the article on Vegetarianism that some vegetarians (with the names of two) have made an effort to have the eating of meat called Carnism. -
Fartherred (
talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- A meat eater is called a carnivore. Carnism is essentially the psychology of a human carnivore. How is that a problem? Viriditas ( talk) 23:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- The article does need balancing with defenses of carnism, where they can be appropriately sourced. However, that's more of a NPOV problem.
WP:Attack, as I understand it, is primarily a defense against poorly-sourced negative BLPs; as an example of articles which portray their topics negatively because that's how the RS which discuss them treat them, see
child labour or
sexual assault.
FourViolas (
talk) 23:42, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: That you and the article see sexual assault and meat eating as comparable activities requiring a similar level of support for them in articles about them is the problem. Sexual assault is a crime. There will be no reliable sources supporting sexual assault as if it were a legal option. Meat eating is a part of everyday life for the majority of people. There are reliable sources that defend it. There would be more if more people thought there were any opposition to the practice that required a defense. In Genesis 18:7 Abraham had his servant cook a calf for visitors. Would FourViolas intend that Abraham's actions should be morally comparable to a sexual assault?
- I am a meat eater but I am not a carnivore, I am an omnivore. I have no need to justify my eating of meat. I woud agree that eating meat is natural, normal, necessary and nice, but it is Psychological experts that bring up these terms in articles referred to supporting that Carnism some aberration of modern society. It is an aberration of Psychological experts who are looking for a reason to oppose the eating of meat. Psychological experts should stick to psychology. Their ideas about the morality of eating meat are no more scholarly that the ideas of the butcher. The Psychologists should mind their own business and avoid making derogatory comments about meat eaters. They should not be cited as experts on the morality of eating meat. -
Fartherred (
talk) 06:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear, I thought I had made my point clear. For the record, I don't think carnivory is morally comparable to rape; I was just pointing out that "balancing the views of all RS" is not the same as "balancing positive and negative views". I just added some reliable sources' arguments in favor of the morality of eating meat. Philosophers who get themselves published in scholarly journals of ethics are acceptable sources for an article about an ethical debate. FourViolas ( talk) 10:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to
WP:Attack, "If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists primarily of attacks against the subject of the article, and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place." The problem is that it would retain the disparaging term. Better the article should be deleted and replaced by mention in the article on Vegetarianism that some vegetarians (with the names of two) have made an effort to have the eating of meat called Carnism. -
Fartherred (
talk) 20:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: How can one call the article well sourced when it has a statement like this: "Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs." without any citation. In what jurisdiction is it legal to raise butcher and cook pigs, but not legal to raise butcher and cook dogs? There are people who raise pigs as pets within a city but cannot butcher them because agriculture is not allowed in the city.
- Reply: There are very few articles where EVERY statement is sourced. Wikipedia:Verifiability states merely that things should be verifiable, not necessarily verified. Clearly an insufficient basis for deletion, or there would be few articles left if we followed that view more widely! Edwardx ( talk) 10:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: How can one call the article well sourced when it has a statement like this: "Central to this belief system is a classification of only certain species as food, such as cattle and pigs in the West, which justifies treating them in ways that would be regarded as animal cruelty if applied to species not regarded as food, such as dogs." without any citation. In what jurisdiction is it legal to raise butcher and cook pigs, but not legal to raise butcher and cook dogs? There are people who raise pigs as pets within a city but cannot butcher them because agriculture is not allowed in the city.
- Keep change from redirect, the article is well written and sourced in its current state. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I withdraw my nomination. This article has been expanded from "carnism as a word to describe vegan outrage towards most people" to a more complete and neutral debate regarding the ethics of eating meat. I still think it has some neutrality issues, but the expanded article and definition of carnism meets GNG. ~ Rob Talk 04:08, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (and I voted delete at the last AfD). A classic example of a neologism finally coming into the mainstream. EEng ( talk) 04:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Now that the entire article has an overhaul, the consensus has decided to keep it.
- 9 KEEP
- 3 DELETE
- 6 REDIRECT
Please note that some of the "delete" and "redirect" votes were made before the overhaul, so I don't think they count anymore. Thanks to all those who contributed to improve the article. Further improvements can be made at the Talk page. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 09:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Involved editors cannot close this discussion, not to mention that the discussion should remain open for 7 days. See WP:NAC for an essay on non-admin closures. ~ Rob Talk 10:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whateeeeveeeeer. You said "I withdraw my nomination" and you proposed this deletion in the first place, so I figured it was over. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 10:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Melanie Joy writes: "We love dogs and eat cows not because dogs and cows are fundamentally different – cows, like dogs, have feelings, preferences, and consciousness – but because our perception of them is different." Melanie Joy seems to think people in general fail to see things as they are but she can set us straight. There are fundamental differences between cows and dogs regarding their suitability as pets or meat animals. Dogs consume more expensive food than cows and are therefore less efficient as meat animals. Cows are larger and more difficult to care for in a domestic situation than dogs so cows are less convenient as pets. These differences, and perhaps many more, have resulted in laws being written confirming the differences already inherent in nature. Melanie Joy's disregard for facts is typical of the militant vegetarians who seem to be intent on convincing society in general to forego eating meat. As IP 174.2.98.24 writes: "Because it's literally one of the beginnings to saving all the murdered animals on this planet. YOU may not believe it's a notable concept, but the millions of vegetarians and vegans in this world sure as hell do." I have no moral difficulty shooting a deer or killing an inconvenient cat or dog, but I do have difficulty with tolerating the ranting of militant vegetarians.
- Their sort of illogic and emotionalism is likely to cause much trouble for innocent vegetarians who just want to live in peace and not change the world. People writing on Wikipedia can hide behind a user name, but if people start suggesting changes in ordinances and laws to prevent butchery, the businesses catering to vegetarians will not be able to hide. There are many people who are not as rational and easy going as myself who might decide to fight against vegetarians rather than argue against the militant vegetarian propaganda. If one has concern for peace, tranquility, and the common good; one should vote to delete this article. -
Fartherred (
talk) 04:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy, but it's now notable idiocy, and that's all that matters for the purposes of this discussion.
EEng (
talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that fanning the flames of dispute will not likely result from this article, that provoking anger is unimportant, or that pure adherence to Wikipedia policy is all that matters, come what may. -
Fartherred (
talk) 05:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- With limited exceptions to which this doesn't even begin to rise, yes. We don't advocate controversial ideas, but neither do we censor them. And dispute is healthy—it's how societies decide the important issues facing them. As the great Clark Kerr said in a somewhat similar context, "The University is not engaged in making ideas safe for students. It is engaged in making students safe for ideas. Thus it permits the freest expression of views before students, trusting to their good sense in passing judgment on these views."
- And anyway, you're being ridiculously overdramatic—these are vegans, not Nazis or KKKers. Now please stop acting like you don't understand the principle, because it's obvious you do. EEng ( talk) 06:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think that fanning the flames of dispute will not likely result from this article, that provoking anger is unimportant, or that pure adherence to Wikipedia policy is all that matters, come what may. -
Fartherred (
talk) 05:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy, but it's now notable idiocy, and that's all that matters for the purposes of this discussion.
EEng (
talk) 04:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Pay attention to reality. I never wrote that vegans are Nazis or KKKers nor implied any such thing. The malicious attacks by people opposed to the fur trade against anyone wearing fur are well known. They committed arsons and vandalism against animal research operations. Only some of the perpetrators were caught. If you were to not see the similarity to anti meat-eating propaganda, I would suspect intentional blindness. By the way, what principle do you suggest that I am pretending to no understand? -
Fartherred (
talk) 06:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Snore. Of course I see the similarity. As stated earlier I think Joy's an idiot, but that's irrelevant for present purposes. And I didn't say you wrote that vegans are Nazis or KKKers. I implied that you're overreacting to a ridiculous extent—an extent which I am parodying as being suitable to the reaction to those extreme ideologies.
- As a modestly experienced editor you certainly must be familiar with
WP:NOTCENSORED. I think further interaction will be unproductive, so if you want to have the last word now, please be my guest.
EEng (
talk) 06:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Sleep on, fellow editor EEng. While the WP:NOTCENSORED policy allows content that does not adhere to general social norms, it does not require such content. I suggest that we ignore all rules and delete the Carnism article because it would be better for society in general to do so.
- There is no chance whatever that propaganda from vegetarians and vegans is going to convince the whole society to stop eating meat in the next fifty years. There is a chance of such propaganda causing conflict in which the weaker group will suffer the most. Without the Wikipedia article, "Carnism" is likely to be just a matter of temporary interest in newspapers and magazines. Keeping the article makes it more likely that a glowing ember will ignite some violent conflict.
- As I have written, Wikipedia editors can bravely hide behind their user names, but others are not so lucky. People who have compassion for animals ought to have compassion for people too. -
Fartherred (
talk) 07:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- "People who have compassion for animals ought to have compassion for people too." LOL, no. I hate the majority of humanity. I believe humans are power-hungry creatures capable of nothing but tyranny, destruction, conquest, slaughter, killing, war and violence - fighting over land, territory, resources and property - driven by primitive instincts and impulses and incapable of higher thought and consciousness. When I look at humanity, I see anger, greed, blame, hate, selfishness, superficiality, jealousy, envy, lust, materialism. I have no respect for the majority of humanity. Humans are like a cancer, destroying the Earth and killing its animals. 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 10:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is
not for political advocacy. The only manner in which we are concerned with bettering society is by providing a complete and free repository of information. While I know you didn't bring them up, it's also interesting to note that we have articles on
Nazis, the
KKK, and
many
other
hate
groups. ~
Rob
Talk 08:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Are you trying to imply that my suggestion to delete the Carnism article is more political advocacy that the efforts of proponents to keep it?
Let me warn specifically of two sorts of difficulty to which this article could lead. Meat-eaters could take offense at their normal opinions about eating meat being referred to as a psychological mechanism for coping with supposed guilt. But more important they might think the militant vegetarians are heartless brutes for promoting a policy which would remove from many of the poor the only source of vitamin B-12 that they have. Recriminations would not likely fall so much upon the Wikipedia editors hiding behind their user names, but on vegetarians in general. Secondly, the proponents of this article might not like the way meat eaters edit it. It is on record that it is possible for a Wikipedia editor to think Melanie Joy spouts idiocy. It is possible for such an attitude to be reflected in edits without obviously violating Wikipedia policies. I am calling on proponents of keeping "Carnism" to reverse their stands for the common good. -
Fartherred (
talk) 10:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not judging the motivations of "Keep" noms at all, but their position is supported by policy, whereas yours is "for the greater good". Wikipedia does not exist solely for the greater good, although it certainly does some good by making information available online for free. ~
Rob
Talk 10:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is for a better encyclopedia that a small minority group not use Wikipedia to promote a word fashioned in a way that provokes their opponents, and causes dissention. I think that this is a case worthy of ignoring all rules, but if you disagree, that is your decision. Dissention is the most that militant vegetarians can get. Per capita meat consumption is in the neighborhood of 40 kilograms (88 pounds) per year. with the world population near 8 billion that is about 300 million metric tons per year. That industry is not about to cheerfully close up shop because some psychologists write that people need a coping mechanism to deal with guilt from eating meat. This article can only cause trouble by making Carnism a word which it would not be without Wikipedia's help. Whoever closes this AfD must follow policy, but those who have been promoting it are under no obligation to dig in their heals. They could come around, and ignore all rules is a sufficient reason to favor delete in this circumstance. -
Fartherred (
talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- IAR is unlikely to be a successful argument when you don't have a consensus on your side; you're essentially arguing that WP:YOUDONTLIKEIT. FourViolas ( talk) 18:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is for a better encyclopedia that a small minority group not use Wikipedia to promote a word fashioned in a way that provokes their opponents, and causes dissention. I think that this is a case worthy of ignoring all rules, but if you disagree, that is your decision. Dissention is the most that militant vegetarians can get. Per capita meat consumption is in the neighborhood of 40 kilograms (88 pounds) per year. with the world population near 8 billion that is about 300 million metric tons per year. That industry is not about to cheerfully close up shop because some psychologists write that people need a coping mechanism to deal with guilt from eating meat. This article can only cause trouble by making Carnism a word which it would not be without Wikipedia's help. Whoever closes this AfD must follow policy, but those who have been promoting it are under no obligation to dig in their heals. They could come around, and ignore all rules is a sufficient reason to favor delete in this circumstance. -
Fartherred (
talk) 13:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The word "carnism" is used and the concept described in a reliable secondary source dictionary (see ref #3 in the article). This makes it verifiable and guite likely, notable. I am an experienced biologist with an interest in food-animal welfare, however, I have not heard of this word before today. I have been educated. Surely that is the most fundamental purpose of this project.DrChrissy (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This article has been considerably reworked over the last few days. Editors who !voted earlier in this thread may wish to reconsider their !vote and make the closer's job easier by striking their votes if they so wish.DrChrissy (talk) 14:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed: I'm actually going to take the liberty of pinging
Pete unseth,
Colapeninsula,
Cas Liber,
Doctorhawkes,
MarnetteD, and
Kharkiv07 (the editors who opposed before the rewrite began and haven't been discussing since). Hope this isn't some kind of inverse
WP:CANVASSING faux pas.
FourViolas (
talk) 17:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
User:FourViolas I am certainly not going to raise this as an issue, but it might be more neutral to ping all early voters, regardless of whether they opposed or supported. That way there can be no accusation of canvassing.DrChrissy
(talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but actually (if I'm timing
User:Rhododendrites's comments right) everyone who voted "keep" pre-rewrite has already weighed in post-. Good catch, though!
FourViolas (
talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, at the end of the day we have a widespread practice - eating meat - which is conducted by billions of people, most of which probably don't think too much about it. Some have been conditioned by ignorance, but not in an overly machivellian way, and some probably know more and accept - whatever. We have a term, albeit a convenient and sensible one, that has been tacked onto this situation by a person that has gained a small degree of traction so that it is now according to our guidelines (just) notable but by no means broadly accepted or recognised. We have a huge and notable subject matter - the eating of meat versus abstaining from it - which absolutely deserves discussion. The tacking on of the term to the discussion grossly misrepresents the reality of the (neologic) word's relationship to the concept as a whole. I agree that by GNG I can't really vote delete on a policy-based ground, but my preference would be to merge with vegetarianism or (better) merge with Ethics of eating meat Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 21:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I thought of that, but actually (if I'm timing
User:Rhododendrites's comments right) everyone who voted "keep" pre-rewrite has already weighed in post-. Good catch, though!
FourViolas (
talk) 19:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- @
User:FourViolas I am certainly not going to raise this as an issue, but it might be more neutral to ping all early voters, regardless of whether they opposed or supported. That way there can be no accusation of canvassing.DrChrissy
(talk) 19:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- comment. Thanks for the ping. Look, I still favour redirect, only because the refs (that I can see) still tie carnism to the book. That said, the article is well written and sourced and strives to be impartial. I would be surprised if it wasn't kept. The contributors should be congratulated. Doctorhawkes ( talk) 22:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- STRONG KEEP: Due to considerable work on the article over the last few days.DrChrissy (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Admin closure
It's been 7 days and the consensus is still KEEP, can we please have an admin close this discussion now? 174.2.98.24 ( talk) 09:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Be patient. Apologies: someone ought to have pointed you to the
WP:Guide to deletion by now. The relevant section of that is
WP:GD#Closure.
FourViolas (
talk) 10:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- dear IP (and everyone), what distinguishes the narrowly-recognised
carnism from
Ethics of eating meat......apart from the name?
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is some overlap in proponents of carnism and those pushing an anti-meat-eating POV (not on Wikipedia, I mean in the actual debate). But carnism is the idea that there exists an apparent contradiction between loving one species of animal but killing and eating another, with the difference between "pet" and "meat" decided simply by cultural values. As an idea, it doesn't address the ethics of this contradiction, just its existence. Things get a lot more messy when you look at actual debate, where those who bring up the idea of carnism are using this idea as part of the argument regarding ethics of meat eating. They're technically distinct, though. This is all as I understand it; feel free to correct me. ~ Rob Talk 21:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- dear IP (and everyone), what distinguishes the narrowly-recognised
carnism from
Ethics of eating meat......apart from the name?
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 21:21, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- We're trying to pin it down at
Talk:Carnism#Definition_is_confused. The sources agree it's the
belief system
which supports meat-eating, including cultural tradition and contemporary psychology. All the sources who use the term are particularly interested in the "meat paradox", the friend/food dichotomy Rob brought up.
- We're trying to pin it down at
Talk:Carnism#Definition_is_confused. The sources agree it's the
- I think of it as theory vs. practice:
ethics of eating meat is for philosophers to derive abstract conceptions of morality and determine whether flesh-eating violates them, while
carnism is for describing how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis.
FourViolas (
talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- See I could easily swap those. Carnism as a theory and ethics as to how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis. I think portraying/discussing the whole topic is made worse by arbitrarily slicing it into two separate articles. If carnism was a paragraph in the ethics article it would also more accurately portray its relationship to the whole debate.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- To me the break is cultural vs. philosophical. Carnism looks at meat eating as an example of how cultural values operate, whereas the ethics of meat eating is a purely philosophical argument about ethics. To me, those are very distinct lenses through which to examine the issue, and they warrant two articles. ~ Rob Talk 00:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- See I could easily swap those. Carnism as a theory and ethics as to how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis. I think portraying/discussing the whole topic is made worse by arbitrarily slicing it into two separate articles. If carnism was a paragraph in the ethics article it would also more accurately portray its relationship to the whole debate.
Cas Liber (
talk ·
contribs) 23:09, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think of it as theory vs. practice:
ethics of eating meat is for philosophers to derive abstract conceptions of morality and determine whether flesh-eating violates them, while
carnism is for describing how meat-eaters deal with or avoid dealing with the psychological consequences of their food on a day-to-day basis.
FourViolas (
talk) 22:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The sources in the section I linked are close to unanimous. Having spent quite a bit of time reading through the sources for both articles, it seems clear that carnism, like ethnocentrism, is a mindset and a set of psychological phenomena, while "ethics of eating meat" is what it sounds like—an ethical debate, among philosophers, about whether killing animals for food is compatible with morality. Would you like me to set out definitional quotes here?
- Despite that distinction, if [[ethics]] were less extensive I'd advocate merging it into carnism, as a big section called something like "Ethical critique and defense of carnism". FourViolas ( talk) 03:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.