Talk:Vegaphobia

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Accerniglia (article contribs).

Original research

The article contains a number of examples allegedly illustrating discrimination against vegans. Such examples must come from reliable sources which explicitly describe them as vegaphobia or similar. Otherwise it will be WP:SYNTH and opinions of a wikipedian, which is inadmissible.

Please review the articles are remove statements which do not conform wikipedia policies about citing sources and original research. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Incomprehensible (Italianised?) English

In a section that deals only with women in Italy, the terms "his companions" and "his diet" are used - so who is the "he" supposedly referred to? The Italian words for "his" and "her" are the same, and this suggests that whoever wrote this doesn't know English anything like well enough to be writing in it. A little later we're told that a woman who "opened a vegan activity" (?) in a market had her "banquet" "overthrown". Not only should "overthrown" read "overturned" (you can only overthrow a government or ruler), but "banquet" means a sumptuous meal, not - as clearly intended here - a market stall. And yes, the Italian word "banchetto" can have either meaning. Here the English is quite simply incomprehensible - looks like someone made the elementary mistake of using Google Translate, which repeatedly produces such gross errors.213.127.210.95 (talk) 16:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC) On reading more of the article, I see it's full of bad English, as well as a misspelled link ('Tiblisi'). Copy-editing may not be sufficient if, as in the cases just mentioned, the errors are due to influence from another language which the editor may not know. Whoever wrote this simply should not be posting Wikipedia articles in "English"!213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Frivolous tagging

@Kleuske: why are you buying into frivolous tagging and nonsense of the IP? IP claims that this article has POV, subject lacks notability and is a hoax. Reliable sources disagree.[1][2][3][4] You can't edit war over such frivolous tagging unless you have genuine concerns and before such frivolous tagging you have to raise them here. There maybe problems with WP:OR, but template for that is already there. MapSGV (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This article is complete and utterly bullshit. But hey, we live in 2018, everyone gets their piece from the victimhood cake, right?91.64.41.47 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

How about we try to make this a better article instead of having an edit war with anonymous accounts? Clearly veg*ns have not been enslaved or whatever, but just because someone else had it worse doesn't make whatever happens to you right. There are clear examples of prejudice cited in the article, although perhaps could use more English-language references. Nessie (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@MapSGV: Let's start at "buying into frivolous tagging" I disagree with the "frivolous" part and I'm not "buying into" anything. Your source indicate it's a neologism coined in 2011 and yet the article has no problem including Greek comedies about the Pythagoreans, based on a publication in "researchgate", which (AFAICT) does not mention the Pythagoreans or Pythagoras. Even if it does, we need more than a WP:SELFPUBLISHED source.

POV-check

To me the article seems to have a distinct POV, since it does not hesitate to include the works of Greek comedians (5th century BCE) under the term of a 21 century (CE) neologism. Ditto on the inquisition and the nazi's. The article posits "vegaphobia" as a fact rather than an opinion, which, of course it is. Since many of the so-called instances are sourced to articles which do not mention the term at all, at the very least we have a case of WP:SYNTH and (ipso facto) POV.

Notability

Many of the sources are selfpublished articles, other sources do not mention the term at all. A quick search does not reveal a wealth of sources (rather a dearth) of sources, which makes questioning the notability a reasonable stance.

hoax

This is about the only point I could agree with, since, sadly, this term seems to be coined in all earnestness.

That leaves us with the uncontested tags, which designate this article as a mess of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:POV, unworthy of Wikipedia.

The main point is that you do not remove tags without discussing them first. See Help:Maintenance template removal. Kleuske (talk) 10:36, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I've been bold and kicked out all the WP:SYNTH/WP:OR based claims, which leaves us with "someone coined the term". Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske:, I don't think the sources of specific instances need to mention the exact word 'vegaphobia.' There just needs to be some sources that say that vegaphobia is the term for discrimination/prejudice/etc. against veg(etari)ans. Then any incident cited that shows prejudice against veg*ns can be included. Not ever instance of, say, Islamophobia, has the perpetrators saying "This is an aspect of my Islamaphobia" or using the word at all. Nessie (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@NessieVL: That, pretty much, flies in the face of WP:SYNTH:"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.". You basically claim the right to determine whether or not some incident is an instance of "vegaphobia". That's not how Wikipedia works. Kleuske (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Kleuske: See third point listed at Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. Article has issues and I was not denying that, but concerns is with frivolous tagging that I disputed. IP is engaging in disruptive editing and his motive is to get article deleted which will never happen. It is no more non notable or a hoax if it has been covered by reliable sources like Springer, Routledge, and but your earlier edit was restoring those tags. Article can either be subjected to maintenance tags about POV or original research, not both.

@NessieVL: good point. Maybe Kleuske should mention how Wikipedia is maintaining articles on Islamophobia (Islamophobia, Islamophobic incidents) if it is necessary for the source to always make exact mention of the term. — MapSGV (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Since the term is, at best, marginally notable, I suggest we merge the article into the main article "Veganism". Kleuske (talk) 11:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)