Talk:Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old related AfD's[edit]

Please see:

WP:BEFORE[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Notability (books), Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows is notable as it verifiably meets criteria 1, 3 and 5. Note, notability may be established by meeting only one of these criteria. These include the following:

  • The book is the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself. This includes newspaper articles (Erbe 2010; Muniz 2010; Spencer 2012) and reviews (Kearns 2010; Matejka 2010; Pedersen 2012). Sufficient critical commentary exists to expand this subject.
  • The book is considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to the animal rights movement literature. (#)
  • The book is the subject of instruction at multiple elementary schools, secondary schools, colleges/universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country. (University of Western Ontario, Psychology 1000, Dr. Lynne Jackson)

While there are sufficient sources to focus on the neologism "carnism" as the primary topic rather than the book (more so since the subject and its coverage in the literature predate the book) Wikipedia policy (for example WP:NOTDICDEF) supports redirecting neologisms and dictionary definitions to their parent topics, especially when a neologism has little currency outside its field. If and when it is necessary, "carnism" may be split out of its parent topic into a more fuller treatment of the subject. This also holds true for the author, who is most widely known outside her field for this book. Viriditas (talk) 04:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the current article is far better written than expected for any AfD nominee. I have struggled with how Melanie Joy most often presents her case for the term 'carnism' and believe that this Wikipedia article, as it now focuses entirely upon the topic (rather than on side issues surreptitiously imported into the presentation, which, BTW, confuse or conflate the issue with other 'pending' social issues and are thought possibly to be - or to have been - 'designed' to do so and to turn off some voices and to raise others). The clarity of the article is, IMO, admirable! Thank you, writers and editors!  :-) MaynardClark (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard Melanie Joy several times; I have watched videos of her presentation several times. IMHO (in my HONEST opinion), this article is far clearer and shorter than her presentation, and it avoids extraneous illustrations which IMO have nothing whatsoever to do with the PURER concept of carnism, though in her thinking her talking may provide an opportunity for her to make that 'other point' (which IMO is extraneous to the conceptual content of the term 'carnism'). I truly appreciated finding this article which so effectively clarifies the construct.MaynardClark (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism merge[edit]

Carnism, as a term, appears to only be referenced to this book; that's rather a problem for a stand-alone article. The sources independent of it are basically original research synthesis, connecting them with the book's argument. I do think some of it's salvageable to here, but some caution's needed. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Carnism is a well-developed article about a concept originating with the author of this book but used by others. It would overwhelm this article, and there's no reason to merge. SarahSV (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear about the notability and synthesis tags, Adam Cuerden added them today when he added the merge tag. [1] I removed them (leaving the merge tag), but he has reverted. [2] Leaving this note in case anyone thinks the tags were already there. SarahSV (talk) 23:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect, the largest issue which has been raised amongst the involved editors is the also the reason why the content from that article will not "overwhelm" this article: most of the content on that article has nothing to do with term carnism and references the term, Dr. Joy and this book not at all, and is very clearly a massive complex of WP:Original research stitched together via extensive use of synthesis. That content would not be merged over, as it would be as inappropriate here as it is at Carnism. Instead only a few paragraphs would be added, representing that material which actually connects to the term and this work without the aid of SYNTH contortions. And that material, though limited, would bolster and improve the article here. All of which is honestly secondary to the fact that carnism cannot stand on its own under our policies, as a WP:Neologism that is being promoted well beyond what the sources can support, regardless of whether we merge the content here. Snow let's rap 22:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose0. I've discussed carnism (as a concept) with Dr. Melanie Joy, arguing that it seemed indistinguishable from speciesism, but Dr. Joy held forth (in Boston) on how the two concepts are conceptually distinct. I'm sensitive to Adam Cuerden's position, but I think we need to defer to Dr. Melanie Joy, author of this book, since the concept of carnism is catching fire and has been used widely. IMO, this article clearly states the difference between carnism and the more general concept speciesism. MaynardClark (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't provide evidence of significant mainstream usage outside of Melanie Joy yet. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: We can't just presume the term will be notable in the future. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to phrase this without it sounding antagonistic, so I'll just say it outright with assurances that this is not meant to be abrasive: we just don't care (for the purposes of deciding content on this project) that you had the opportunity to discuss the matter privately with Joy, or that you were won over by her arguments. Point in fact, it is usually quite the opposite from ideal to have people involved in editing an article on a topic which they have primary experience with and/or on which they have strong personal perspectives. We base our content decisions on this project on the basis of what is said in WP:reliable sources, not from our own personal knowledge, experience, or perspectives. As you gain more experience here, you'll come to see how crucial it is, when trying to be effective and neutral editors, that we remove our own outlooks as thoroughly as is possible from the content and how we approach editorial decisions. In this case I think you are way too close to the subject matter and far too unfamiliar with the actual community consensus and policy principles which are meant to govern neologisms on Wikipedia. Snow let's rap 08:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The word is not in widespread use. Its only use is by a minority as a means of attacking meat eating. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd say that using the word 'attacking' may be an ad hominem argument, since the the concept of carnism in social psychology is an explanation of a tragically widespread practice, which is neither natural, normal, nor necessary. If that set of truths is attacked, that would be based in the social source of some subset of advocates of a practice; but the explanation of widely-held assumptions would still prevail as useful, valid, and demonstrable. MaynardClark (talk) 00:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, again, we're an encyclopedia, not an advocacy platform. The article on Carnism is 90% references to this book, and 10% synthesis with content NOT discussing carnism as such. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We could ask for references to USE of the word 'carnism' from sources external to either (a) the book OR (b) the author's other spoken or printed work. That challenge has been used before. It's been requested (above) already. That task SHOULD be do-able. But as the arbiter on the use of the term, I have no problem citing the book as the lexical standard for the usage of the critical term carnism. Note, too, that it's a description of a social characteristic. MaynardClark (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maynard, just a little FYI: the norm for !votes on this project is that you bold only your initial broad opinion but you do not bold your responses to particular points. There are a number fo reasons for this, ranging from the confusion it can cause to the organizational structure of an argument to the fact that, in lengthy discussions, those bolded Support/Oppose perspectives can give a false impression of general consensus. Snow let's rap 22:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support - Per the considerable WP:Neologism, WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis, and WP:POV issues that have been raised ad nauseum at Talk: Carnism. "Carnism" has virtually no footprint in common usage and the sources on that page tell the tale: for every source on that page that mentions the term, Dr. Joy, or Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, there are 12 which do not reference the nominal topic of the article whatsoever. Instead those articles are used to patch together a disparate collection of facts and perspectives from altogether unconnected references in the areas of animal rights, dietary outlooks, and human psychology in order to create a platform for certain social views. Frankly, I cannot imagine a more clear or excessive example of SYNTH. These issues have not been resolved despite repeated discussions raising the blatancy of the content's inconsistency with policy and community consensus on these matters. A merge seems like an ideal solution here: it will allow us to preserve that content which actually relates to the term carnism (which is most properly contextualized when covered on this, the article for the only work which substantially discusses the term and its intended meaning) while at the same time filtering out all of the original research which has been artificially attached to it like an unwieldy scaffolding, in conflict with some of our most basic editorial principles, in order to WP:advocate for particular views. Snow let's rap 22:34, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - The comment preceding this was unsigned. Further, how can one demonstrate 'virtually no footprint in common usage'? MaynardClark (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicate !votes struck by Softlavender (talk). MaynardClark, you only get to !vote once. Do not keep repeating the word "oppose" much less bolding it. Thank you. Softlavender (talk) 04:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maynard, on this project the onus is upon those who want to include content to prove that it conforms with our WP:verification standards, not upon those who oppose it to prove otherwise. Therefore, if the sourcing we have at present is not sufficient to suggest that the topic is more than a neologism, we make our content decisions accordingly. This term is a neologism, efforts to up-jump it with WP:Original research not withstanding. And almost all of the few sources int he carnism article that actually use the word do so in reference to the book that is the subject of this article, which is exactly why the merge is being proposed. As for my post being unsigned, I'm not sure what that was all about--looking at the revision history, it seems as if maybe the autosigner script was malfunctioning. But technicalities like that are really quite beside the point in this (or any) content discussion. What matters is the application of policy to the sources and content at hand, not who is making the arguments. Snow let's rap 08:21, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My view, looking at the article, is that it is simply WP:SOAPBOXing. The word hasn't caught on, and although it has been mentioned (in terms of, or reference to, the book) in a couple of outlets, it's still a one-source WP:NEOLOGISM, and belongs in the article on the source. As the Carnism article itself is heavy on the fat and gravy, it will also benefit by the reduction in verbiage via the merge. Some of it can go into an article on vegetarianism or veganism. Softlavender (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This has been hashed out over and over and over again at the Talk:Carnism, due to the persistence of certain people with strong views who never supported their opinions with sources. I will point out that that article hardly cites Melanie Joy at all, and is obviously not about her book. If you actually look at the references, you will find they support what the article says, and refute the idea that carnism is a "one source neologism." --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the various citations for the Carnism article, and 99% of them either (1) do not mention the word "carnism" at all (in fact most – 60% – of the citations predate the public use of the word), (2) mention "carnism" only in respect to the book (in fact some come from press releases for the book). In point of fact, most of the citations have nothing to do with the subject and are instead agricultural articles or statistics used in a massive WP:OR WP:SYNTH WP:OPINION WP:ESSAY to prop up veganism. The subtitle of Joy's book is "An Introduction to Carnism". The material on carnism belongs there. The OR SYNTH material just needs to be deleted outright. The RS non-synth non-OR material on veganism which predates 2010 belongs in the article on veganism. Softlavender (talk) 06:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC); edited 06:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Softlavender: Look at these references, all independent of Joy and the book, which talk about carnism: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. See talk page for why editors other than myself chose to include earlier material that clearly talks about the same ideas, on the grounds that the topic is the subject and not the word. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And those sources discuss the term exclusively in the context of Joy's book. All of those links merely reinforce Softlavender's point, which is that the term has gained no mainstream usage and only comes up when discussing this work and it's author's notion. All of the rest of the sources (that is, the great majority of references) in the carnism article mention carnism not at all and are merely WP:SYNTHED in for WP:SOAPBOXING purposes. But those few which do reference carnism do so in dicussion of Joy's book and the notions found within it. None indicate a broad (or negligible) adoption of the term as a concept gaining utility in its own right. These are exactly the reasons the merge is being suggested and why it is the appropriate course of action, and even your own links underscore this fact. I'd like to reiterate, particularly for those who are well-disposed towards Joy's notions and want to see them represented somewhere on the encyclopedia, that a merger would actually preserve (and increase the utility of) that content currently in the carnism article which actually is connected to carnism via sourcing. That information is much better contextualized in this article rather than being part of an awkward and in appropriate amalgamation of WP:Original research which will surely be deleted sooner or later. Snow let's rap 08:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Summary style merge is enough for now. Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: Can you clarify the meaning of your !vote? This is a proposal to merge the article Carnism into Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows, which by your words you seem to be in favor of, yet you !voted "Oppose". Can you clarify what you are in favor of, what you are not in favor of, and what "summary style merge" means and what "is enough for now" means? Softlavender (talk) 11:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original question had unstated but implied Xfd strings attached in terms of a future post merge, with this thread devolving into different directions and aspects of the question posed by the OP. Nobody in their right mind objects to a simple merge, in summary style fashion. What they object to is a merge, redirect, and delete. The article can stand alone or not, good arguments can be made in either direction, and the OP could lean one way or the other depending on how you interpret it; to summarize—I oppose two of the three unimplied but connected eventualities, and I support merging independently of any redirection and deletion. An RFC would be more appropriate, as would a better question. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:MERGE always entails a redirect, but not a deletion of page history (unless that is specified in a successful AfD). So I'm still confused by your !vote. Do you want content duplicated in both articles (one full article, and a summary of it in the book article)? If so, I understand why you are !voting "Oppose". (Although I still find your wording of it confusing in this standard merge-proposal discussion. I personally think if you want to keep both articles you should probably specify that in your !vote, to avoid confusion.) Softlavender (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We appear to be on the same page, in the sense that we are both terribly confused. I'm confused, for example, at why an article talk page is being used for what you characterize and interpret as an Xfd discussion. So, no, I don't agree that all merge discussions involve redirection, and as I've already made clear, a summary style merge involves neither redirection nor deletion. In this case, all that is truly needed is a summary style merge of the main points of Joy's theory; there is sufficient material to maintain a standalone article IMO, however, as I have previously said, there are also good arguments to merge and redirect in total, but I don't support that outcome at this time. I would encourage an interested party to do a summary style merge and fix up the carnism article so that we can see what's left to work with. That could be used as a basis to argue for or against redirection depending on the result of the cleanup effort. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Check out WP:MERGE: "A merger is a non-automated procedure by which the contents of two or more pages are united within a single page. Merging creates a redirect from the source page(s) to the destination page, with some or all of the content copied and pasted into that page". This isn't an XfD discussion, it's a WP:MERGE proposal. Softlavender (talk) 03:13, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Adam Cuerden, you forgot to put the merge proposal tag on the top of this article, as required by Step 2 of WP:MERGEPROP. Could you please do that? Thanks. (By the way, consequently this merge discussion should count as beginning when Adam places the tag on this target article, and last a commensurate amount of time.) Softlavender (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A selective merge without a redirect is a common procedure and outcome for summary style inclusion of topics that can stand alone. Because carnism is a controversial topic which has undergone multiple Xfds, it seems like a procedural runaround (or bureaucratic shortcut) to use a merge proposal to achieve the same result. Lots of game playing going on here. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per the Carnism article "Joy coined the term in 2001 and developed the idea in" this book. So, rather than have two short articles, let's merge them and have one decent article. Jonathunder (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or bidirectional merge to this page and Draft:Psychology of eating meat. It's a borderline decision: there are several sources, among them file.scirp.org/Html/4-1760436_58725.htm Fonseca 2015[predatory publisher] (journal admittedly on Beall's list of questionable publishers), Freeman/Perez 2012, and Gibert/Desaulniers 2013, which develop well beyond Joy's writings while making clear their debt to this book (Joy 2010). If the page is merged now, it will almost certainly be appropriate to re-establish Carnism as its own page later, as it appears the concept is gaining currency in some areas of academia.
If Carnism is merged here, there will be a large amount of material—particularly that in sections Carnism#Meat paradox and Carnism#Ascription of limited mental capacity—that would be OR on this page, because its sources never mention the term or only cite Joy in passing among many other authors. That material should be merged to Draft:Psychology of eating meat and republished once that article meets policy requirements. The material in Carnism#Background which does not mention Joy 2010 should be merged to Meat, insofar as it is WP:DUE. FourViolas (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep after considering the artificial acrobatics that would be necessary to incorporate even the most reliable of Sammy1337's sources below into this article. FourViolas (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's aeason for that: the sources didn't mention carnism, and they shouldn't have been in the carnism article in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
  • Comment. I want to address several statements made above, on which this merge proposal largely depends.
Adam Cuerden made the following statements:
  • "Carnism, as a term, appears to only be referenced to this book; that's rather a problem for a stand-alone article."
  • "The article doesn't provide evidence of significant mainstream usage outside of Melanie Joy yet. Remember, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: We can't just presume the term will be notable in the future."
  • "The article on Carnism is 90% references to this book, and 10% synthesis with content NOT discussing carnism as such."
Softlavender said:
  • "The word hasn't caught on, and although it has been mentioned (in terms of, or reference to, the book) in a couple of outlets, it's still a one-source WP:NEOLOGISM, and belongs in the article on the source."
Snow Rise said:
  • "... the term has gained no mainstream usage and only comes up when discussing this work and it's author's notion."
In response to all these claims I would like to point out the following sources.
  • This German academic book by Sandra Mahlke uses the term at least 90 times, including in the title, and is clearly not about Joy's book.
  • This German academic book uses the term nine times, again going beyond Joy's work.
  • I have not been able to get a copy of Le végétarisme et ses ennemis, but FourViolas assures me that it uses the term throughout and that "there's actually a lot of the more useful second kind of information: carnist philosophy in Ancient Greece, Abrahamic religions, and modern society, all in lots of detail and presented in very fair-sounding ways."
  • This book uses the term at least 41 times.
  • This academic book by Frye contains an analysis that is clearly independent what Joy wrote.
  • This essay collection uses the term at least 11 times.
  • This academic book chapter is about carnism and independent of Joy.
  • This new paper uses the term 20 times and goes beyond Joy's book.
  • www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=58725[predatory publisher] This new paper is about "The presence of carnism on Portuguese television."
  • This academic book uses the term at least 14 times, and again has not much to do with Joy's book.
  • This paper by Gutjahr uses the term and is not about Joy's book.
  • This paper "frames contrasts between vegetarianism and carnism through the phenomena of the presence of an absence and the absent referent, respectively" and whatever that means, I think it's nothing Joy wrote about.
  • This paper by Greenebaum uses the term and goes beyond Joy's work.
  • This definitely provocative psychological study tells us that "Animal exploitation and meat consumption are arguably part of the dominant ideological system ‘carnism’, prescribing norms and beliefs about animal treatment" and goes on to discuss this at length.
I could go on, but I think this discussion should be put to rest. If there were a merge, carnism would be the primary topic, not the book. --Sammy1339 (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, in response to Adam Cuerden's third claim above, Joy's book appears in the references for carnism exactly two times - thus accounting for less than 90% of the article's content. --Sammy1339 (talk)
But all the relevant content related to the neologism is Joy. The article is, frankly, a mess aof WP:SYNTH. There's a lot of sources, which do not discuss carnism, drafted in. If we reviewed the article and pulled all content not actually with a source that shows it's about carnism, the article would largely disappear.
As for your list: it does not show it caught on, at least, not yet: are any of those references to the term notable besides Joy's book? Because that's the problem. If the only notable user of the term is Melanie Joy, then it hasn't caught on in any meaningful sense. So, which of those do you consider notable sources? Please be realistic. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are not bothering to read any of the sources, and you are saying that it is all synthesis because you don't see "carnism" in the title, even though the contents of the sources are perfectly relevant and substantive.
As for your demand for "notable sources", that's not how notability works on Wikipedia. You need reliable sources.
And obviously the term has "caught on." --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No... you really need to show that the works are notable if you're trying to use them to show notability of a term. It's a word. We need to see reasonably-high-profile adoption for it to be considered independent of this book. Adam Cuerden (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a concept, not a word, and academic sources examining it in detail do establish its notability. But fine, to play your game, it has been used by Maneka Gandhi,[11], Josh Ozersky,[12], and Jonathan Balcombe.[13] --Sammy1339 (talk) 08:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you didn't bother to read the Maneka Ghandi source. "This week, I am going to reproduce [Melanie Joy's] very thoughtful speech. - that's Melanie Joy using the term, not Gandhi.
The Josh Ozersky source only uses "carnist", and does not include any discussion of the very specific philosophy that defines carnism. It simply uses it as a term for "meat-eater".
The Balcombe source uses it exactly once, without discussing it. And, sadly, that's probably the best of the three, since it at least uses the term, and links to a definition (by Joy). Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But did you read the thirteen secondary sources above which do discuss the concept in detail? I then produced these three in response to your nonsense claim that we need "notable sources" using the word. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Consumer Identities: Carnism Versus Veganism".
  2. ^ "The Presence of Carnism on Portuguese Television www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=58725[predatory publisher]". {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  3. ^ Helena Pedersen. "Critical Carnist Studies".
  4. ^ "Carnism".
  5. ^ "The Sustainable Global Marketplace".
  6. ^ "This Is Hope: Green Vegans and the New Human Ecology".
  7. ^ Kenneth joel Shapiro (1 June 2015). ""I am a Vegetarian": Reflections on a Way of Being". ResearchGate.
  8. ^ "The Rhetoric of Food".
  9. ^ "Carnism explains how animals can be loved and eaten". The Portland Press Herald / Maine Sunday Telegram.
  10. ^ "Unity: The Art and Science of Transformational Change".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Why_We_Love_Dogs,_Eat_Pigs,_and_Wear_Cows&oldid=1210321489"