User talk:FourViolas

Welcome to my talk page! Please leave new messages at the bottom of the page, and auto-sign your name by adding four tildes (~~~~ ). I'll respond here unless you request otherwise

MfD nomination of Draft:Psychology of eating meat

Draft:Psychology of eating meat, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Psychology of eating meat and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Psychology of eating meat during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fiddle Faddle 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Do not be disheartened by this. Instead please go to the deletion discussion and argue your case. My advice if to be as brief as possible, and to read the comments of others before making one, good, input. As you know, I was about to accept it. Things have intervened. I view this as a useful procedural device to sort the issue out once and for all. Fiddle Faddle 18:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help in bringing an end to the limbo. Sorry about the hornets' nest. FourViolas (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

At least, now, something will happen. I have no idea whether it will be the outcome yo want, but that is Wikipedia. After all the work you deserve an answer. It seems that acceptance of the draft would not have been the end of the matter. You have probably guessed that I care about the article, not the topic, an area which passes me by entirely. I also care about the way folk are treated. Fiddle Faddle 09:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Can either of you explain to me why there is any opposition to this article? I'm honestly perplexed. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know I didn't intentionally cherrypick sources (except for FUTON bias pre-hollis) or skew what they said. That leaves two hypotheses, one ungenerous (hence probably false) and one humble (hence more probable):

• People, statistically speaking, do not want to think about these issues,[1] and are intuitively hostile towards those who insist on bringing them up.[2] That is, I foolishly ignored the warnings of the very papers I was citing, trusting that Wikipedians were too reasonable to fall prey to such predictable phenomena.
• Something about the way Google Scholar selects papers, or the sources-of-sources-of-sources method I relied on to expand the article, or the way I summarized the material, really did promote a POV other than that of professional consensus in this area.

There's nothing I can do if the first is correct, but the second is remediable. Snow Rise, a very fine editor who also has some psychology training and does seem to understand what the problem is, said they would help out after this mess of merge/delete discussions finishes up. FourViolas (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

@Viriditas: I don't have an opinion about the topic, just about the article. I saw, when I tried to accept to, a well sourced, decently written article. The sole reason I have nominated it for deletion is that this seems to me to be the only way to resolve what happens to it. It was a draconian way of trying to clear the log jam, akin to using dynamite on a real log jam.

It seems to be controversial. This is probably the same type of discussion as between those for and against routine neonatal male circumcision. Except I have an opinion in that discussion! Fiddle Faddle 16:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I should, perhaps, state that I am omnivorous, enjoying meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, cereals etc broadly equally, though with some texture/flavour dislikes and a strong desire not to eat garden pests. I understand that a creature must die if I am to eat it. With animals I prefer to delegate that task to those better equipped than I am. I catch, kill, gut and clean my own fish and do not have any issue with that. Equally, I understand and accept that others find this abhorrent. With all living creatures that I choose for food I prefer them to have had a decent life, to have been well reared and to have ben killed well. My budget does not always allow me to do this.

I have been the house guest of vegans, and enjoyed their food. I found it difficult to prepare to give sufficient variety of flavours, textures and nutritional value. I would not disagree with someone who stated that eating meat was a shortcut to that process.

I think I probably fall into those whose psychological state over meat eating is that I am consciously aware and choose to eat it. That, however, does not mean I have an opinion on the topic. Instead it means I understand my dietary wishes. Fiddle Faddle 17:23, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I was interested to find that the literature goes far beyond the familiar culture wars between those who think meat is natural, normal, necessary, and nice [3] and those who think it's a moral outrage [4]. What you describe is perfectly in line with research; thinking about animals motivates you to seek "happier" meat [5][6], but price often has the final word [7]. But there's much more. Insofar as you value your masculinity, you may be subconsciously motivated to go grill a steak after your manliness has been questioned [8][9]. Eating meat might make you feel more positively about the value of authority and conformity [10], or make you think of yourself as more businesslike and pragmatic [11]. There's a lot to write and think about here. FourViolas (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt I would be inclined consciously or subconsciously to grill a steak after my manliness were questioned, you know. When I was a teenager I might have been so shallow, but I doubt that, too. It's an odd suggestion, really. When under stress we often comfort eat. That tends to be heavy, sweet or crisps! While it is unlikely to be a root stew, it is even more unlikely to be grilled steak.

I suppose your surmise runs to "hunt > kill > prepare > eat" but I don't run on those rails

I had my masculinity challenged quite seriously when I was 17/18. Grilling steak was very far from my mind. Suicide was very close to it. Fiddle Faddle 15:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to hear that, and I'm glad you made it through.

This defend-your-machismo-with-burgers idea struck me as rather far-fetched, too, but it seems to be a replicated empirical effect: "when facing threats to masculinity, men tend to perform defensive acts in the form of increased meat consumption in order to repair their threatened masculine self-representation". Traditional hetero-masculinity is supposedly tied to beef consumption [12]. Sobal 2005 agrees with your explanation that "meat is symbolically grounded in images of men engaging in the particularly masculine activity of hunting." FourViolas (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder why, on the various treatises on the matter, they never consider that women might hunt. I have feeling they postulate what they expect the results to be and then seek to prove themselves to be correct. My (and Sobal's) idea is "ritually simplistic" and seems to be to be total bollocks. To hont requires certain very specific attributes. Maleness is not one, nor is femaleness.

I wonder, too, what "hetero-masculinity" is. I choose to take the meaning of "hetero" in this context from "heterogeneous" and thus see a world of different types of maleness. Interpreting it in a "heterosexual" vs "homosexual" manner is stereotypical and discriminatory-by-definition. Fiddle Faddle 17:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

No offense intended, but the source was using it to contrast with gay and metrosexual forms of masculinity. Sobal has some more sophisticated discussion later on about "multiple masculinities": “strong men,” “healthy men,” “wealthy men,” “sensitive men,” “traditional men,” “smart men,” “pure men," etc, each script having different implications for meat-eating behavior.

I think you might be right about women and hunting; although the men-hunt-and-women-gather model is true in "most" traditional societies, there are plenty of exceptions [13]. However, a lot of this psych research studies popular stereotypes, not reality, so it's not their problem. FourViolas (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have taken no offence from you. I recognise that you are stating what is said by others to show that others have said it. There is a deletion discussion at present about Men Going Their Own Way, an amusing coincidence, though I have started both discussions. I started them for different reasons.

People seem to mistake sexual orientation for maleness or femaleness, and go to great lengths to prove that they are right. Most of these people cold not spot a homosexual man or woman even if they were pointed out in a vivid spotlight alone on a vast stage while waving a rainbow flag. They look at their own concept of male and female and bend the world to suit it. How many homosexual women have ben asked, intrusively. "Which of you is the man?" and how many homosexual men "Which of you is the woman?"? People mistake what folk wish to do with their genitals as somehow defining them, or their need for a partner of the same sex as defining them, yet they, if heterosexual, do not feel defined by their chosen genital interaction nor parter choice.

I feel that much of this is psychobabble, not real psychology. That does not say that a Wikipedia article should not report what is said, even if some people judge it to be ludicrous. It simply shows the need for displaying the various arguments in a rational way free from personal opinions. If you look at my early editing history here I worked in the conspiracy theories area around the World Trade Centre atrocity. This was not because I had an opinion on it but was because I wanted to wrest a good article from the depths of faction fighting and POV pushing. We, I would like to say "I", but others had the same agenda as did I, achieved a pretty decent set of outcomes after battle it for a good six months. Fiddle Faddle 17:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a secret tendency to be exasperated with the endless drama about gender and sexuality. Of course it's a massively important factor in everybody's life ever, but it's so arbitrary and so often unrelated to individuals' true personalities that I sometimes wish everyone could just stop making a big deal out of it (and stop discriminating based on it, of course). I'm lucky enough to have enough friends of all kinds of sexualities and genders to know that their ideas and characters are far more important to me than their pronouns and partners.

I really enjoy learning how to discuss all these topics at a encyclopedic distance, arranging topics and scholarly lineages with objective exactitude and sifting out tomes full of ill-informed shouting matches (i.e. unRS). Congrats on World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories and similar; that looks like a massive amount of work and care, and the article is truly informative about the important points of a massively complicated "controversy". FourViolas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the meat psych article may turn into your WTC article. The trick to success is to rise well above any views you hold and submerge this in favour of getting collaboration and discussion to build the unbiased article. Firmly insisting on Wikipedia;s rules, giving full rationale and entering into ponderous discussions is th only way to wrest any contentious article form the hands of those who would bend it to their POV. You can, in the end, bore them into submission! But know when to let go of the article and let it find its own way.

The dramas around sex and sexuality and trans issues is, mostly, down to prurience. People have a detailed interest in what others do with their genitals, perhaps to chase the best sexual experience ever. They are also repressed, probably caused by current or historical religious instruction. That repression is often expressed as 'shock', which is occasioned by their feeling aroused by the taboo things they are discovering. How many homophobic politicians have been found in bed with male escorts, for example?

One issue is that women were once in the UK the property of men. In some nations they still are. They were seen and treated as sex objects and breeding machines for the necessary heir. "If" they had opinions those were ignored as being women's prattle. The man, with no danger of becoming pregnant, could do whatever he liked to whoever he liked, especially if that person were weaker, smaller, or simply submissive. That was reinforced by the priesthood

Something that may amuse you is that I have never been interested in this or other discussions in whether you are male or female. I note that you are a feminist, of which there are many male, but more female. For some folk it matters hugely. For most sensible people it is an irrelevance. There was a huge discussion when BethNaught was created admin about their sex, as if that mattered. I neither know nor care. I care instead about their editing, and I think they care about mine in the same way. I seem to have drifted into a ramble! Fiddle Faddle 14:28, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to buttonhole me with good advice and insightful musings anytime! FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Carnism

As you probably gathered, I'm not actually against the idea of carnism (I'm not fully vegetarian, but I'm moving that way, and cook primarily vegetarian at home). It's just that before spinning out meat paradox, the article looked really bad on analysis: lots of material that didn't even mention carnism and so on, which doesn't give a good impression.

But there certainly is a good core to the article. Even if one could possibly cover a lot of this at the book (influence of the book being a valid subject) the revisions over the AfD combined with the spinoff make this article now look quite strong, honestly, and I rather wish things had gone a bit less confrontational before everything got heated up. No matter.

This... may sound weird from someone who just nominated it for deletion, but I could kind of see the cleaned-up article as a Good article with very little more work. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I do think we need a little more in the History section, to give context, but I'm not seeing it in the cut material. What we need is basically something to give context to "In the 1970s traditional views on the moral standing of animals..." The Renan Larue material isn't quite enough. We need a brief analysis of traditional carnist views, not of vegetarian views. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Adam! I'm really happy to see you optimistic about the article and setting to work. I'm looking forward to seeing it improve. Of course you don't have to be vegetarian or anything to contribute; that's the beauty of WP:V and WP:DUE. All an editor needs is a willingness to find, read and summarize reliable sources.

I don't know how to say this, but...several editors at that page, rightly or wrongly, seem to have had their ability to AGF strained somewhat in this area in general. I think it would be a great idea to mention your aspirations for bringing the article to GA, and your willingness to accept the existence of the page, before somebody starts accusing you of trying to "cut the article down to nothing" or "get revenge" or something. I think there's lots of room to move forward, but we may all need to read WP:KEEPCOOL and apply the principle of charity to everyone else's comments. Thanks again for pitching in to improve the article! FourViolas (talk) 17:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isadora Duncan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elizabeth Duncan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Salem Shore at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit to 'Veganism'.

Your change of 'bogus' to 'supposed' is a good compromise which, in my opinion, is sufficent to make clear to our readers that veganism is not being seriously proposed by WP as a remedy for anything.

On the other hand the wording, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for everything from cancer, asthma and tuberculosis to acne' although intended to be an improvement is not in my opinion sufficently clear. People, especially those hoping for a miracle cure, can still take this literally. Do you have any suggestions for this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, supposed carries a fairly strong connotation of general (if somewhat questioned) acceptance of the thing being proposed. I'd suggest something like

became popular in the United States because of the health claims made for it/them, though such claims generally/largely lack scientific [etc etc etc].

EEng (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Full context: In the 1830s Sylvester Graham's meatless Graham diet – mostly fruit, vegetables, water, and bread made with stoneground flour – became popular as a supposed health remedy in the United States. I don't think we need to belabor the point that a 200-year-old fad diet is not necessarily medical gospel. FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, Mr. Harvard Harvard Smartypants, but I still think supposed doesn't do the trick. EEng (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right; it's wholly inadequate as it stands. It needs an accent grave:

“ Though many kooky claims 'supposèd' be,
Mark well the section heading: History. ”

Run that by WT:MOS, would you? FourViolas (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know vegans ate MOS. Do you like my new template? EEng (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

As long as it isn't reindeer MOS. I do—it's much classier than "/s". FourViolas (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Since you've made comments regarding Martin Hogbin's edits

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rose (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding dispute resolution

Your advice to Martin is somewhat off the mark. Mr. Hogbin has a long history of ignoring consensus and starting RFCs to attempt to bypass consensus. The RFC process specifically recommends not doing this. Please see the section "Before starting the process" at WP:RFC: "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC." Viriditas (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have restore the signature. The current RFC rules require a signature, as the rules were changed some time ago. Viriditas (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted, as I appear to be wrong. It looks like it still allows one to sign with the option of just the date. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

While, as you know, I disagree with MH on the question, I think he's well within process. It's a matter of principle: there is, after all, the (theoretical) possibility that all of us are wrong, and he alone is following policy and RS. He has tried to discuss, and has failed to find a consensus he can accept. Now the wider community can decide which position has the better sources and arguments, and I'm sure a fair result will obtain. No problem about the sig, I linked to the wrong part of the page. FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunateness

"Unfortunately I think FourViolas, as usual, is exceptionally patient." I suggest you work to remedy that, so as to avoid any more such unfortunate incidents. EEng 21:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey, what are you doing posting here? You scram, and take your shiny new stature with you! FourViolas (talk) 05:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

He would have an enormous schwanzstucker! EEng 05:42, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

...Unfortunate indeed. FourViolas (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Microbiota, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stress and Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Salem Shore

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Psychology of eating meat

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

I really enjoyed your article on the psychology of meat eating! Abyssal (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope you found it rich, satisfying, and not too tough. FourViolas (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Dvorak advert

re dvorak 9 : use in ads : yes, this was a notable use of the music with a high recognition factor in the uk. it brought both the music and the location to public notice. i will try to find support for this. Daiyounger (talk) 17:42, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

from the entry for hovis "In 1973, Hovis became lodged in the public imagination through an evocative television advertisement, "Boy on Bike" (a.k.a. "Boy on the Bike" and "Bike Ride"),[4] written by Geoff Seymour from the Collett Dickenson Pearce advertising agency and directed by Ridley Scott, who six years later would come to the public's attention when Alien was released. The advert featured the slow movement of Antonín Dvořák's Symphony No. 9 rearranged for brass.[6] The advert has been voted Britain's favourite advertisement of all time [7] The ad was filmed on Gold Hill in Shaftesbury, Dorset.

This advertisement was repeated on British television for a 10-day run in May 2006 to commemorate the firm's 120th anniversary. The boy on the bike, Carl Barlow, then aged 13, became a firefighter in East Ham in 1979, and later acted in the films Alien and Gladiator.[8][9]" Daiyounger (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Daiyounger, I didn't know the ad was so well-known. WP:In popular culture suggests it may be appropriate, depending on whether the advert itself was truly notable, of interest to a broad spectrum of readers, and whether the section quoted from the music was enough to let watchers learn a significant amount about the work. I'm not sure those criteria are met, but at least WP:Verifiability is, which is a good start.

I do still feel it's more relevant to mention the symphony at Hovis than the advert at Symphony No. 9 (Dvorak), though. Searching scholarly discussions of Dvorak's 9th, I found one paper (about something else entirely) noting that "Thanks to a BBC television advertisement, some listeners in England during the late 1970s associated the slow movement of Dvorak's New World Symphony with Hovis bread"; however, I don't think that demonstrates that most readers of an article about the symphony would be interested in Hovis' advert. FourViolas (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

hOVIS etc. pedantry alert : there are no adverts on BBc television in the UK. i think the small section i propsed on the use of the music is still valid. the association in the Uk is still strong, and works both ways. Daiyounger (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Yo-Yo Ma edits

Thanks for double-checking my edit to the Yo-Yo Ma page. I was sure that I got the info from his official bio, but obviously not. I've found a couple sources for the seven-year-old reference: One at Harvard Magazine and one at Smithsonian.com. And thanks for the kind welcome to Wikipedia. I'm new to this editing thing. Cckktt (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No problem, Cckktt, and thank you for finding those sources! I've added them in, formatted so they can support other useful information in the future.

Editing is always a combination of adding good content and nosing around to see if anyone else slipped up in adding theirs; if you can do both in good spirits, you're already a great contributor. Thanks again, welcome, and feel free to drop me a line whenever you have WP questions! FourViolas (talk) 06:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)