This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veganism and Vegetarianism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of veganism and vegetarianism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Veganism and VegetarianismWikipedia:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismTemplate:WikiProject Veganism and VegetarianismVeganism and Vegetarianism articles
This article presents information almost exclusively from vegan/vegetarian points of view. Several other users have raised concerns related to this. It should be re-written or expanded to include more points of view on this issue. 2601:1C0:CB00:20:D0F1:51D3:1C47:1CFE (talk) 12:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The sections on "Non-academic reception" and "Justification" contain relevant criticism from non-vegan POV. Tags removed. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is obviously only touched by vegans and is essentially calling meat eaters worse people in every way which is just hilarious. 31.205.95.126 (talk) 07:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the sections are well sourced and none of the claims are personal opinions but are made by researchers and the academia in general. Since the very term is about the psychology involved in justifying meat-eating, it comes as no surprise that it'll incur the wrath of those who disagree with it. Nevertheless, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not censored and intends to give the facts as they naturally are. Rasnaboy (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carnism is a theory that comes from a particular perspective. As such, most of the RS about it are from within that perspective. It makes sense for the article to explain carnism from within that perspective. However, in the interests of WP:NPOV, the article should not be entirely from within a perspective that accepts the entirety of the carnism view. We should be open to and include other perspectives, where appropriate RS exist. So, do we have any RS with critiques of carnism? I used to work in this field (food psychology) and there's certainly a broad range of views on meat-eating beyond carnism and that would disagree with carnism. Bondegezou (talk) 13:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criticism appears in the non-academic section of this article as well as in the article on the book Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows. You may wish to find some kind of parity between the two. I would also suggest checking the page history, as the criticism section has changed in both articles over time. I should also note that the OP accusing this article of bias is a common, visceral reaction by most carnists who have never had their invisible belief system called out or questioned, and as such, does not mean this article is POV. An analogous scenario is when a religious person, who grew up in a homogenous religious community, leaves their community and moves to a heterogeneous area, where there are more "nones" and different religions in evidence. What often happens is that this person either accepts the existence of a diversity of beliefs and life stances, perspectives they were not previously exposed to in their insular town, or, as is more common, they feel persecuted and criticized since their previously dominant belief system is now in the minority, and they are unable to reconcile a difference of opinion. This is what we see happening with these "article is biased!" posts. We have people who come from predominantly carnist communities who are now exposed to non-carnist beliefs. They can’t reconcile the two, so they lash out claiming the subject is biased against meat eaters; we see the exact same phenomenon in secular and atheist communities, where fundamentalist Christians perceive secularists and atheists as biased because Christianity is no longer recognized as being the dominant narrative. This is not a POV problem, this is a persecution complex problem. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Viriditas, please refrain from making WP:ADHOMINEM comments about other editors. Perhaps you would consider deleting or striking through such remarks? Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ad hominem up above. I explained why this page repeatedly gets random complaints about POV. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I don't see any ad hominem thing in User:Viriditas's comment. They're just explaining why these articles repeatedly get such "article is biased" sort of comments even after POV concerns are duly addressed. This is evident from the earlier discussions in this and other animal rights–related pages over the years. Will try to find more RS as Bondegezou suggested and let's keep improving the article. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comments made earlier were about another editor rather than about the article, the very definition of WP:ADHOMINEM. Likewise, comments like This is not a POV problem, this is a persecution complex problem do not suggest that the requirements of WP:NPOV are being taken seriously and look a bit WP:NOTHERE. Bondegezou (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A person truly characteristic of WP:NOTHERE couldn't have stayed here for nearly two decades now. I think they're just trying to explain the logic behind the repeated nature of such comments/ideas. As long as the user truly intends to build this article, I can only relate it more with WP:NOTNOTHERE. With the assurance already given to improve the article with more RS, let's move on in the right direction. I think we all are very much here. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All of these arguments are in the archives linked above. We’ve had users coming to this page and adding POV tags for many years based on their pseudo-argument that the article is biased because they perceive it as pejorative against meat eaters. This not a valid argument, it’s a form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article fails to meet neutrality standards and is poorly cited[edit]
Specifically "Justification" under "Features", which relies heavily on Joy herself and non-academic sources. It makes repeated use of magazine articles, Joy's book, and a study from the University of Edinburgh. The study had a sampling of under 200 students. The sections asserts "Although scientists have shown that humans can get enough protein in their diets without eating meat" and only provides a YouTube video as a citation.
The section "Non-academic reception" references a handful of opinion pieces in online magazines and one critical piece from a beef industry outlet. The section name is disingenuous, as most of the pieces cited in support are similarly non-academic (e.g. aforementioned YouTube video, New York Magazine, HuffPost, Sydney Morning Herald).
This reads more as a piece on the book itself rather than an overview on the academic literature on "carnism". TheobaldShlegel (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
