Talk:List of vegetarians/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Why list Former and Disputed vegetarians?

Why are there lists of "Former vegetarians" and "Disputed vegetarians" in this list-article? This list-article is already bloated so large you can barely edit it. I see no reason why you would keep former or disputed ones in mainspace. Maybe put them on the Talk page, or put them on a sub-page to preserve the "coding" (and linked to from the Talk page), but NOT in mainspace. Normal Op (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

The main reason we maintain a list of these is because if somebody stops being a vegetarian and we take them off the list then at some point somebody comes along and tries to re-add them with the older source. There are advantages for both approaches: i) they are more visible on the main page so editors will be more inclined to keep them up to date than if they were kept on the talk page; ii) obviously keeping the lists on the talk page helps reduce the size of the main list. Betty Logan (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You could just as easily keep them in a simple list (name only) as hidden text in the mainspace page, and keep the coded list (table entries and wiki-markup) elsewhere. Or even if the list wasn't hidden but instead just have their names. There is no need to keep the entire table entry for those who are "no longer" considered to be part of the list. And frankly, I've never heard of a list of ____, followed by a list of NOT____ just to keep editors from re-adding entries. Normal Op (talk) 17:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that might be a good idea. I'm not sure "former vegetarians" is any kind of encyclopedic topic. And "disputed" = not reliably sourced, so it shouldn't be something WP is claiming in own voice. While we do present multiple sides of serious controversies, where ostensibly reliable sources make contradictory claims, whether some random celeb is a vegetarian or a vegan or an ovo-lacto-vegetarian, or mostly a vegetarian but one who cheats, or whatever, really isn't anything we need to try to cover. That's for People magazine and other such trash (WP:NOT#MAGAZINE). I agree with Betty Logan that we do want to discourage re-re-re-addition of the same wrong or dubious entries, though. Normal Op is correct that HTML comments usually get his job done. It generally works at least well enough to keep it under control with occasional "patrolling", especially if there's a corresponding talk page thread about it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: Since the only reason for keeping the former/disputed sections seems to have been "so no one re-adds them to the active-vegetarians list", I have duly archived the content at Talk:List of vegetarians/former and disputed archive. There is a note in the mainspace list-article List of vegetarians to caution editors to check the former/disputed archive before adding/re-adding someone to the list. Those who are maintaining the list, should also continue to maintain the archive IF they wish to preserve the tabular formatting and the citations (rather than losing them when someone deletes someone from the list). Normal Op (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment on images

There are currently 42 random photographs along the right edge of this list-article which has over 700 names on the list. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative," and "Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a photomontage or gallery of images of group members." When one views the page from a mobile device, one must scroll through all 42 photographs before one reaches the content of the page (a list).

Should the images be deleted from the page, or moved to a gallery at the bottom, or trimmed to a small number of most-prominent, or some other option? 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normal Op (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure I am more interested in what to do with biography lists in general than this one case. Biographies is a large class of articles. Probably we eventually need to develop a recommendation on how to manage lists of biographies. September was Wiki Loves Monuments and also the 10-year anniversary of the project. While not as numerous as biographies, there are many lists of monuments, like for example Grade I listed buildings in Buckinghamshire. There are differences between buildings and biographies, but with buildings, there is an established practice of putting photographs down a list. Maybe there should be a list policy to define when and when to not use images. Probably it is timely to discuss this, because within years, it is likely that Wikidata will be autogenerating list articles for many Wikipedia language versions. If anyone sorts a practice now then that will define what will happen with English Wikipedia and beyond. For monuments, I do not think those list templates are standardized anywhere. I think various monument collections use their own list templates. I think biographies might be more standardized. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:44, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  I know what you mean. Certainly, photos of buildings are far more interesting than photos of human faces (in my opinion). But in the case of this list-article, the photos are random, not associated with any particular entry in the list, and aren't even alphabetized. I checked each one (of 42) and found 1 which wasn't even on the list. Because they are floating on the right, there is no tie to indicate a photo should be removed if someone is taken off the list. Normal Op (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• There [should be] no problem with the number of images currently displayed. Images of people named in a list is perfectly reasonable, and consensus can determine who is/isn't pictured (probably a mix of different fields, backgrounds, etc. focusing on those best known for their vegetarianism?). When I open the list (whether desktop of mobile view) on my laptop, the pictures not only fit but leave a ton of space for more pictures. When I open it on my phone, as OP says, it makes me scroll past the images first. This is a stylistic matter worth considering, but not reason in itself to change what pictures are displayed here. It's due to using a table but putting the images outside of the table. We could, like the monuments articles, include pictures in the table, but that would make for an even more massive page (even if we limit the number of pictures informally, by creating an empty cell for a picture, people will add them). I'm thinking the best thing to do here is to split the list up into alphabetical groupings (e.g. A-F, G-M, N-R, S-Z or something). Realistically, given the size of this page, this probably makes the most sense anyway. (Alphabetical is probably preferable to other forms of splitting since it limits the number of other pages, rather than spawning countless others based on country or field). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  I like your suggestion of alphabetical subheadings. That way, when you're editing the list you don't have to load the entire 300,000 bytes into memory. I checked the first few letters: there are 27 A's, 63 B's, 43 C's, 29 D's, 12 E's, 25 F's. That means there are plenty of entries for each letter. We could allow/limit maybe 2-3 photos per letter (subheading) and require the image to be someone in that section. That would solve a lot of problems with this long list. Normal Op (talk) 23:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

  The number of images seem fine, and I'd say keep them as is running along the side (maybe with the first 10 or so the really famous names and then alphabetically). As for dividing the list into letters, people know how to scroll down a long list, and along the way they likely stop and read the names. The list has been popular just as it is, and its main feature is allowing people to be surprised and encouraged at the included people. If a section-division somehow has to occur, then four sections, per Rhododdendrites, seems reasonable instead of putting every letter into its own section. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:55, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  To be clear, I didn't mean break it up into sections; I meant break it up into separate pages. We have many large lists that are broken into multiple alphabetical chunks. This isn't the sort of topic where much of anything is list by not having a person with a T last name visible on the same page as someone with a B last name, so why not make it a bit more manageable? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Anyway, this section is solely about the images, not overall page changes. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

• Be more conservative and focused with the images They should illustrate what vegetariantarism is more than who is a vegetarian. Also, there's a lot of images for the size of the article. Lists often don't have images, anyways. (Summoned by bot) I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 04:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  But this isn't the article on what vegetarianism is. It's about who is a vegetarian. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Remove them, as WP:UNDUE dwelling on "my favorite bio subjects". Everyone on this list should be WP:NOTABLE, so there is no rationale to display photos of some of them but not others (besides those for whom no usable pictures exist). But having one next to everyone on the list would be excessive. The purpose of lists like this is not to serve as an image gallery, but as a quick-reference list. The place for images of these bio subjects is at their bios. That said, if photos were to be kept here, at bare minimum consult with WT:MOSACCESS about how to best fix the accessibility/usability problem of all the images being packed at the top of the list (in the code, in mobile rendering, and probably in several other scenarios) and thus interfering with the ability of people to get to the textual material that the list actually exists to provide. There are multiple possible approach to that, from additional table cells to not using a layout table at all to using a floated and positioned div which occurs lower in the code.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  Good points. Your mention of MOSACCESS led me to MOS:ACCIM which has a short list of where images should be placed, especially for web accessibility for disabled persons. We should all read this at least once in our wiki careers. Normal Op (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep all images. The point of the page is for readers to find out who is a vegetarian, and the images and complete list without dividing the page accomplishes that. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• We have a list of vegetarians? Why? It's a lifestyle choice, and not a particularly unusual or controversial one either. We might as well have a list of people who cut their hair once a month, or people who keep a dog. There's something curiously random about an article that places Paul McCartney, Martina Navratilova and Hitler next to each other. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

  We just had an AfD, so now is not the time to discuss this. RockMagnetist(talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep. I looked at the discussions that led to MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, and noticed two things. First, although strictly speaking a list is classified as an article, the people discussing images seemed to be thinking of non-list-type articles. In lists of people, images down the side are very common, and generally don't seem to be disruptive. Speaking of which, the main concern seemed to be potential arguments over inclusion, but we haven't had any yet on this page. Rather, there is still plenty of room for adding more images. I agree that the accessibility issue is a concern, but breaking the list into sections is a good solution. I prefer grouping them by time period rather than alphabetical order, as a more interesting and meaningful division. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
• Keep, and split table by field. Including photos of the most significant items on a list is a very longstanding practice, reflected in many FLs, and I don't see the language in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE as advising against it. Regarding the mobile display, that's certainly an issue; I noticed it recently at the FLC for List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z). The only way I know to solve it currently, though, is to split up the table. I think it'd be better to do this by subject area than by name, since subject groupings are informative, whereas names are arbitrary and can be easily sorted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

  Sdkb, you wrote, "I don't see the language in MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE as advising against it". Sure it does: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." These photos are decorative and don't "aid to understanding". Normal Op (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep per RockMagnetist - Idealigic (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Looking on mobile view does make it difficult as you have to scroll through tons of pics before you even get to the list. List is also too clumbersome, especially to be managed by editors. Keep it all on one page but split the table into alphabetical order, and make the images as thumbnails within the table. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, a more formal ivote. A picture is worth 1,000 words (give or take 80), and people viewing the images see at a glance those who are vegetarian. They make the point of the page, that vegetarianism is an accepted and popular dietary choice. The sizing seems fine, the presentation is adequate, and the encyclopedic sharing of knowledge suitable for its purpose. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Add "date of birth" to the table

I wanted to sort the list by date of birth but the feature isn't avaiable. 9RbN (talk) 10:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Notability

Per WP:NCLIST, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead. Consequently, and also to reduce the occurrence of spam, I added[1] the qualifier "notable" to the lead section, just as it's the practice in similar articles: [2][3][4][5][6] and countless others. However, Betty Logan keeps removing it. Do you think that specifying that the list should only contain notable individuals is helpful in the lead? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Adding "notable" to the lead

Kashmiri has twice twice added the word "notable" to the topic description in the lead. I do not think it is helpful to describe the entries in this way.

While additions to the list are expected to conform to Wikipedia's standards for notability, this is a technical term used on Wikipedia to determine whether a subject meets the criteria for an article or not, and does not necessarily align with the interpretation a typical reader would have. With this is mind WP:NCLIST argues that "Best practice is to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article". MOS:PUFFERY also advises against using such terms.

Kashmiri adds that the reason for adding the word is to "prevent" spam. However, this article is on my watchlist and attracts virtually no spam. The article attracts minimal disruption, and the most common addition that needs to be reverted is unsourced additions. Should we also say this is a list of vegetarians "with sources"? No, because readers can see that. They can also see that entries all have a linked article.

If Kashmiri can point me to Featured Lists that describe entries as a "notable" exponent of the list topic then I will consider revising my opinion. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Betty Logan Any reason you did not respond in the previous section?

As I have already pointed it out to you, the NCLIST policy applies to the title of a list article. However, no rule prohibits the use of the term, "notable", as a criterion for a list. Conversely: using notability as a criterion is explicitly encouraged in WP:LISTCRIT.

Your first revert claiming that I added "puffery" to the article (which is absurd), and your second revert invoking your misreading of NCLIST aren't necessary encouraging. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Also not sure what you mean by "featured list". This has never been a featured article as far as I'm aware. It was even nominated for deletion less than 2 years ago, with an outcome of "no consensus". — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Additions are required to have an actual article to be added to the list, so there are many people omitted from the list who would be considered "notable" under Wikipedia criteria, and would be rejected because they don't have an article. Also, telling readers that entries are "notable" does not convey a helpful meaning in this context, because Wikipedia has a precise definition for notability that is not tautological with an encyclopedic understanding of the word. You are inventing a problem for solution because there is no spam problem at this article. You are trying to add a word to describe the inclusion criteria that for most readers will be defined differently to how it is defined in a Wikipedia context. Both WP:NCLIST and MOS:PUFFERY advise against using the word, and I do not see how it is helpful to readers to add it to the article, nor have you highlighted an any examples of good practice—such as usage in peer reviewed featured lists—that would give me cause to reconsider. Betty Logan (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If such people are notable, they have a place on Wikipedia and someone will create an article about them sooner or later. By omitting this word you are encouraging additions of any person who happens to be vegetarian, without heeding for their notability. However, much like the other lists that I linked above, this list is also restricted to notable people.

For the nth time: WP:NCLIST does not prohibit the use of the term "notable" in the article body; the policy applies only to article tiles. You might like to refrain from repeating your misinterpretation for the 4th time.

I have no idea what you mean by a "peer reviewed featured list". Wikipedia never does traditional peer review like academic journals – all Wikipedia articles are "peer-reviewed" in a sense. I also don't get your concept of a "featured list". Care to explain? — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The most common type of addition that has to be reverted is unsourced additions, not non-notable additions. You are proposing a solution for a problem that does not exist. The word "Notable" carries a very specific meaning here on Wikipedia and it is not reasonable to expect readers to be familiar with Wikipedia's WP:Notability policy, and therefore not helpful to include it in the lead. Editors can plainly see that everyone on this list has an article associated with them. When you decided to edit this article how many non-notable entries did it include? Wikipedia's peer reviewed featured lists exemplify the best editing standards on Wikipedia, and if we are to draw on other articles as examples, it is those articles we should look to. For example, the featured List of mathematicians, physicians, and scientists educated at Jesus College, Oxford does not describe entries as "notable". Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Betty Logan, first example I checked, List of animal rights advocates, and I found this: The following is a list of impactful animal rights advocates. I am not arguing in favor or against notable, in fact I would lead more against, as I believe anyone that is vegetarian and has a Wikipedia article should appear on this list. An perhaps someone will see "notable" or any other word and decide that perhaps they are not notable. But maybe other word could be added. Or something as simple as "people with wikipedia articles". AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

There are plenty of examples of lists that use words such as "notable", "prominent", "impactful" etc, but I have yet to find a peer reviewed featured article on Wikipedia that uses such a description. My problem with words such as these is that we don't document people who are not significant/noteworthy/prominent in some way, so why are we telling the reader something obvious? Also, a reader can see that all the entries on the list have articles, so again why would we need to tell the reader that? What problem are we trying to solve by telling the reader something that is obvious? Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it's perfectly ok for Wikipedia list articles to contain elements that themselves are not notable. For example: [7][8][9]. So, please don't assume that inclusion on a list equals notability; per WP:LISTCRIT, each list article should specify its own inclusion criteria.

(2) I'm asking you for the third time to explain what you mean by peer reviewed featured article, or to stop using this wording. You might be disappointed to learn that Wikipedia never does a scholarly peer review. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, you seem to assume that by putting the word "notable" in the article that a reader will be familiar with Wikipedia's notability criteria. That is categorically not the case. Most readers will not be familiar with the specifics of what constitutes "notability" on Wikipedia, so it is not particularly helpful. It would be much more obvious to state "this is a list of people who have articles on Wikipedia who are vegetarian", but this is plainly obvious to anyone who visits the page. They will immediately see all of the entries have associated articles, so again what problem are you trying to solve? I have overseen the list for many years and it attracts minimal non-notable additions. You can plainly see this for yourself by reviewing the edit history of the last few months. I have also provided an example of a peer-reviewed featured list in my recent reply to you; you can view more at Wikipedia:Featured lists. These articles represent the highest standard of writing on Wikipedia and I have yet to find one that describes entries as notable/prominent/impactful etc. It is poor writing to state what is immediately obvious to the reader. It is also poor practice to use Wikipedia terminology that most readers will not be familiar with. We seem to be going around in circles here, so I would suggest wrapping up this discussion and starting an RFC if it matters that much. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that adding "notable" is not really needed but I wouldn't object if someone added it. This is really not an issue for me either way but if you look at other lists on Wikipedia, many of them use the term "notable" in the lead. Just some random examples deaths in 2022, List of classical violinists, List of private-equity firms, list of Freemasons, list of Hungarian films 1901–1947, List of Armenian films, List of programming languages. I did a search for notable and lists. There are hundreds of lists on Wikipedia that use "notable" specifically in the lead but I agree that this term is not used on any Wikipedia:Featured lists. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────┘
I also, as Psychologist Guy, don't find it such a problem to have the word "notable" there. But, having this article already been a couple of times near deletion, and seeing that the word "notable" can make some editors uncomfortable, I would err in the side of caution and just leave it out. Don't want to somehow attract another nomination to this page. AdrianHObradors (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

List selection criteria must be unambiguous. The naked word "notable" is problematically vague and should not be used, per MOS:PUFFERY. However, there is nothing wrong with editors forming a consensus to use

To be included on this list, an (entry/event/work/person/etc) must be sufficiently {{Self-reference link|Wikipedia:Notability |notable to have (its/their) own Wikipedia article}} and.... (whatever else you agree on).

which renders as

To be included on this list, an (entry/event/work/person/etc) must be sufficiently notable to have (its/their) own Wikipedia article and.... (whatever else you agree on).

The option to use WP:NOTABILITY is contemplated and approved by our WP:P&G, and is actually used on many lists.... and not on others. Its up to editors here to work it out. But just naked "notable" is MOS:PUFFERY to be avoided. Good luck. Don't forget about the tools of WP:Dispute resolution in case they would help.
Also, once you have a consensus on LIST CRITERIA, please document the consensus on the talk page as described in Template:List criteria. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Timeframe

Should be a distinction in timeframes. Born and raised vegetarian, vegetarian for 30 years, vegetarian for a week, etc. Einstein was not a vegetarian until he was about to die. 79.106.203.78 (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Timeframes are incredibly difficult to pin down, and they are only known for a handful of people. For example, in the case of Hitler we know he still ate meat as of 1937, but had stopped by 1942. In the case of modern celebrities, they often announce they are vegetarian but in most cases it is not known when they adopted the diet. Ultimately this information must be sourced. I understand the point you are making, but at a practical level it is impossible to enact. Betty Logan (talk) 18:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree the point the IP raises is valid but it will be to difficult to enact. We can only go with what the sources say and most do not talk about a timeframe. Unrelated to this but unfortunately, most modern vegetarians eat fish so they are not even vegetarian by definition. When you really go looking a lot of these celebrities that call themselves vegetarian eat fish and other seafood. The list needs a proper examination. I would like to see less celebrities and more people on the list who dedicated their lives to vegetarianism, i.e. people associated with the Vegetarian Society. I believe the article needs to be updated at some point. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. I think there are designated types of vegetarians. Lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo, pesco-ovo-lacto, etc. I don't know theofficial. Something like that. Could add this to a chart. Maybe also cause of refraining from meat. Religion, health, politics, etc. Hitler was for health reasons, if I recall. Most people today are motivated by political reasons. Animal cruelty, etc. Maybe I am just too demanding. I am very fascinated in the subject myself. I have been a life-long vegetarian, but not for political reasons. I have carnophobia. I have never even heard of anyone like me. I love eggs, milk, and sometimes fish. And I have nothing against others eating meat. It is fascinating what sort of people were a product of vegetarianism. Were they intelligent, strong, weak, average? It is rather frustrating when I see an Olympic athlete famous for being vegetarian, only to find out he has been so for 3 months and is on the payroll of PeTA or something. Mostly celebrities on here, and not avid devotees to a discipline, because wiki demands people to be known and published publicly somewhere. Difficult around that one. Sorry to bring this up here. But I think it might be a fairly popular subject. Perhaps I'm not alone in some sort of list with more details on the subject? I never edit wikipedia, as that always seems to get me in trouble. But I have always been able to discuss ideas. Happy to see two friendly people on here. Thank you. 79.106.203.69 (talk) 06:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The official definition of vegetarian is a non-flesh eater, i.e. someone who does not eat meat. Fish is meat so you cannot be a vegetarian and eat fish. There is pescetarianism, so take a look at list of pescetarians for those that eat fish. In India you can not eat eggs and be vegetarian because eggs are classified as non-vegetarian. It is different in the west. The standard definition of vegetarianism in the west is lacto-ovo vegetarianism which involves both dairy and eggs. We don't need to add all the definitions to this article. Basically this list is for non-meat eaters. We go with the common accepted definition.

I agree with your concerns about celebrities who claim to be a vegetarian but have only done it for a few months as a publicity stunt. If you go through the list, a lot of the celebrities are no longer vegetarian. The sources cited are mostly tabloid like from 15 or so years ago. The article needs a massive update. I will attempt to do it at some point. As stated I would like to see vegetarian activists added to the list who dedicated their lives to vegetarianism and less of the fad celebrities who obviously did not do it long-term. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)