The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete, for the record, all but one of the keeps was a single-purpose account, and the other was the article's creator Deville (Talk) 14:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carnism[edit]

Not notable neologism, per WP:NEO. With a limited number of search engine hits, I doubt the accuracy of this article. Likely hoax, it is only used officially on a vegan-pro website, which, according to the article, was the coin-er of the term. Iolakana•T 17:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Several references to "carnism" and the use of the word are found when this user searched.

Including but not limited to:

This article/presentation by author and director of Society and Animals Forum: http://www.vsh.org/lectures_August_04_2004.htm

This article by Joy appears in the academic Journal of Humanistic Psychology: http://jhp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/45/1/106?ck=nck

This article is one among many examples of the word "carnism" and its form "carnist" being used in context by the general public: http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/2006/03/fighting-animal-cruelty-eat-meat.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolyn z (talk • contribs)

• Delete The article was created by Melanie Joy, leading me to believe it is vanity, since the article claims that Melanie Joy is the creator of the term. One of the links provided above is also an article written by Melanie Joy, and another is a blog entry. This term is far too obscure to merit inclusion at this time. If in several years it becomes commonplace, then it will have a place, but Wikipedia shouldn't act as its springboard in common use- Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The lack of widespread use outside of a small circle of animal rights activists also leads it to fail verifiablity. There have been no mentions in mainstream press regarding this neologism. --Wafulz 19:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI believe the inclusion of the blog comment was meant to show what the commenter called the word "being used in context by the general public" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.218.1 (talk • contribs) .

Comment So because the term is not used in the mainstream press it lacks viability as a way to describe a section of society? Do not delete." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by erin (talk • contribs) .

• Delete Yes, I agree. The original article was very biased and self-serving. I tried to balance the article and it was changed back to self-serving and judgemental form. Dane Sorensen Aug. 26, 2006— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.100.84.96 (talk • contribs) Comment likely left by Dane Sorensen Dane Sorensen 17:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Dane C. Sorensen[reply]
• Additional comment by Dane: Considering this term is so poorly concieved and was posted by the inventor with an incredible bias, I still think it should be deleted. Otherwise, the scholarship will go to hell in a hand basket on Wikipedia. I agree with the Captain - stir fry with olive oil and "deleat". Pun intended!

Comment While I agree the initial incarnation of the article wasn't entirely neutral, I would argue that your edit resulted in a negative spin. However, that's besides the point. Being biased is not grounds for deletion- violating specific policies or guidelines is. --Wafulz 19:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not DeleteThere has yet to be a term that denotes the eating preference of the dominant group that being meat-eaters. We have plenty of terms denoting the nondominant groups. Vegetarians are a far larger group than one may want to believe and a term like carnist allows vegetarians to identify those who eat meat...simple.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scina (talk • contribs)
  • User's first edit. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced neologism. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 21:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete The term is important and necessary. The term canist (carnism) is separate and distinct from carnivore and omnivore; it points to the ideology involved when once chooses to consume meat. No other word fits this unique description.Cyberrd 22:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Dina Aronson — Possible single purpose account: Cyberrd (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.[reply]

• "Do Not Delete" Despite the assertions of the initial poster, "carnism" is becoming increasingly widely used throughout the vegetarian community. Google includes citations from Seventh Day Adventist sites, as well as more mainstream vegan ones. Carnism also appears in the literature of several languages. And, finally, carnism is also an accepted term in the psychological literature. As for bias, Dr. Joy is entirely right in pointing out that carnism is biased in exactly the same way that all all ideological descriptors are biased. If the editors wouldn't delete "communism" or any other "-ism" for being biased, then how do they differentiate "carnism?" Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.111.217 (talk • contribs) .

• "Do Not Delete" Even before Ms. Joy "coined" the word, it was in use in several contexts. She was simply the first to write down its definition, it seems. Deleting the entry appears to be much more of a "political" move than letting it be.Wikipedia is not censored. -CZ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.218.218.1 (talk • contribs) .

• Consume it, marinated in deletion sauce and grilled over a verifiability fire The verifiability and notability of this article are nil. A couple of Seventh-Day Adventist sites and a few vegans do not a fully-fledged neologism (as opposed to protologism) make. In the meantime... yum... deletion sauce. Captainktainer * Talk 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Most of the google hits that I investigated do seem to have something to do with Ms. Joy, however her work seems widely covered and referenced within the animal rights/vegan community. I don't have any strong feelings either way about the "political" nature of the term -- the criteria should be whether or not it's notable enough for an entry. And in my opinion, it squeaks by (just). Dina 00:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Original research, non-notable neologism. Rohirok 05:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article states that the term was coined in 2001. If true, this makes it a neologism. WP:NEO is then the relevant guideline, and it says that before we have articles on a neologism, we need reliable sources that are about the term, not just that use the term. For notability, we require that the reliable sources be independent. And, in order to be able to write an article adhering to the policy on having a neutral point of view, we require multiple reliable sources. Right now we have no sources. In the article history we have one source that is not independent and may or may not be reliable. We don't satisfy WP:NEO and thus won't be able to satisfy WP:V and WP:NPOV, so the article needs to be deleted. GRBerry 05:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete As a sometimes carnist, what I read in the re-edit by the original author showed neither “an incredible bias” nor an “unbalanced viewpoint”. The “see also” section is evidence of this in that the links range from diet, ideologies and different types of consumption for comparison and contrast that relate to carnism to offer more expansive comprehension. With regard to the statement that “Widipedia is not a soapbox”, the article does not appear to be delivering any sort of speech, appeal or political tirade favoring either vegetarianism, carnism or the lifestyle choice of breatharians. It is simply clarifying a dominant belief system with regard to human consumption. There is no evidence of advocacy, self-promotion or advertising. Though carnism may not be widely known, it is discussed in the recently published book Vegetarians and Vegans in America Today. --Lexnay 20:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is yet another first-time edit. Rohirok 21:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete I am the author of the article. I understand and respect Wikipedia's policy about neologisms. I do, however, want to clear up the misconception that CaptainKtainer ("A couple of Seventh-Day Adventist sites and a few vegans") and others have that carnism has not appeared in sufficient professional sources. As well as having been discussed in two radio interviews and on various Web sites, the following are publications in which it has apperared, either in reference to the concept or fully delineating its construction (and yes, many--though not all--have been written by me):

1. Cicerone, P. E. (2006). L'alternativa nel piatto. Mente & Cervello, 19(4), 44-49.
2. Iacobbo, K. & Iacobbo, M. (2006). Vegetarians and vegans in America today. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
3. Joy, M. (2005). Humanistic psychology and animal rights: Reconsidering the boundaries of the humanistic ethic. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 45(1), 106-130.
4. Joy, M. (2004). Food for thought: Carnism and the psychology of eating meat. VegFamily, March: http://www.vegfamily.com/articles/carnism.htm.
5. Joy, M. (2002). Toward a non-speciesist psychoethic. Society and Animals, 10(4), 457-458.
6. Joy, M. (2001). From carnivore to carnist: Liberating the language of meat. Satya, 8(2), 26-27.

~mjoy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Melanie Joy (talk • contribs) .

• • Comment: Why don't you add these sources to the article itself? That would help your case. All of these votes of "Do Not Delete" don't count for much (if anything), since they've come from new, single-purpose accounts, which hold little to no weight in voting according to Wikipedia policy. Rohirok 10:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Also, please help us by showing us which ones are about the term, as required by WP:NEO, instead of just using the term. At a first glance, the ones that would be most persuasive if about the term would be those by people other than you and those in academic journals (versus activist/lifestyle journals). For non-web sources, adding appropriate quotes to the article's talk page may help, but better yet would be to quote and cite in the article. GRBerry 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I believe this is clearly not what wiki intended per WP:NEO. "wiki is not a dictionary". The article is a primary sourced article by the author and coiner of the phrase, which thus counts as original research per WP:OR - it could easily have been "omnivorism". The author is attempting to introduce a political ideology out of something so universal, and automatic that it does not involve choice at all. The introduction of choice into the consumption of meat is, I suspect, with the agenda of eradicating the human consumption of meat. WP:NOT soapbox. "Carnism" scores 121 unique Ghits out of about 459. The saying does not appear to have gained widespread usage, and the originator herself would probably be excluded from wiki for not being sufficiently notable. 14 unique hits out of 26 for "Dr Melanie Joy", a name shared by another physician in the United Kingdom. No relevant Amzhits for Melanie Joy. Ohconfucius 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not Delete: As a Universtiy Lecturer, I think this entry be left on wikipedia. I also think it should be refined to include more details of its definition and application. I will be teaching about this ideology in a course in the Fall - to a class of 300 students. There are significant mentions of carnism in acadmic literature (some are referenced above) and the coining of the term has had sinficiant impacts for discourse surrounding dominant ideologies and their unmarked nature. I have made reference to this in my own writings and will soon be presenting on carnism at an international conference. I would consider the limited number of search engine hits as relating to the the term be a recent creation and the number will increase rapidly in coming times. I strongly recommend this article not be deleted - i will help my student specifically, and i think it needs to be discussed mroe broadly. Deletion of this article will reinforce its necessity to be exposed as an unmarked ideology - as it will further illustrate its pervasiveness.
  • The above is another vote from a single-purpose account (This is 24.79.137.49's first edit). Rohirok 12:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Original biting comments have been deleted by their author. Rohirok 20:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Please do not bite the newbies. Just because this person does not have a grasp of Wikipedia deletion policy (did your first edit to Wikipedia reflect the full spectrum of Wikipedia policy?) does not mean that we should completely discard his/her opinions. Meatpuppetry isn't the fault of the meatpuppet... it's the fault of the meatpuppeteer. Yes, we warn new users that their votes might be discounted... but let's be gentle in pointing that out, and remember to address the opinions, not necessarily missteps in policy. Captainktainer * Talk 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have reliable sources for any of that? Which conference, and do they publish a list of papers containing the title of your work, which should contain the term carnism? Discounting Melanie Joy's writings, there are (possibly) two mentions. Aside from taking the word of single-purpose accounts, and yourself, there's no way of us knowing whether or not the only other two publications mentioned actually discuss the term at length; as such, Carnism does not meet the verifiability policy. We have a guideline for this sort of thing: WP:NEO. Could you please explain how this word meets the guidelines? Could you explain why Encyclopedia Britannica would choose to include this word? As it is, it seems as though you're asking us to include in the encyclopedia a word that "might" become big. I "might" end up being President of the Union oof the United States and Greater Canada in 2046, but there's no article on President (name deleted) on Wikipedia. Many possibilities exist within our quantum universe, but not every one of them is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Captainktainer * Talk 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Do Not Delete" I'm not too hip to editing Wikipedia, and only just (finally) registered to make this opinion more "official," but I do often use the site as a first point of reference when researching a new phrase or concept. I suppose now that I've finally registered, I will be more actively involved in contributing to the site, so I wouldn't consider this a single-purpose account. As someone who relies on Wikipedia frequently, I think it would be a shame if those who do come across the term "carnist" cannot look it up at Wikipedia due to some sort of bias against words that are not as commonly used by the media as, say, "flexitarian." As the voice behind An Animal-Friendly Life, a website with an international readership -- and the composer of an above-linked blog entry using the term -- I have found the word invaluable in describing a mindset that has otherwise not previously been sufficiently described. Is the purpose of Wikipedia to validate the "gatekeepers" or to inform the public? Removing this term from Wikipedia will make it less accurate, not more so. Updated 8/31 to include another recent blog reference Epskionline 22:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

.

• Delete - this doesn't seem encyclopaedic. No independent evidence that it is an ideology rather than just a word coined by one person. BlueValour 03:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't make any sense. The word carnism was coined specifically to describe an ideology. The evidence is all around that people choose to consume meat, and to defend that practice, even though they don't need to eat it. To choose to eat meat (carnism) is as ideological as the choice not to (vegetarianism or veganism), so how can you say that there is no evidence that carnism is not an ideology? That's the whole point of the word. There has not been an effective term 'til now that describes the doctrine of eating meat, and carnivore doesn't make that cut because it describes the dietary needs of an animal, rather than one's actual choices.Epskionline 04:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I eat meat; I also eat eggs, fish, vegetables, fruit and nuts. I do not choose to eat meat on 'ideological grounds' any more than I eat fruit on ideological grounds. People are by nature omnivores - examine your teeth. This word was coined on the misconception on why peple eat meat. BlueValour 15:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reference to the IP address used (I am the 'University Lecturer') above as indicative of my 'first time' editing, i am currently on holiday and using a friends machine. I have been active in Open Source/GPL activities for many years. I have followed the rise of Wikipedia, and made (only a handful) of contributions over a long period of time (this is not a sinlge purpose account as charged). To actually address the issue at hand - which i think any discussion of this should focus on on - it embodies whether this term is useful, insightful and encyclopedic. It is a relativley new term which is directly reflected in its limited 'visible' usage. This is also sigificantly restrictetd to academia. These are not in any way valid reasons for its deletion. Most new concepts that have substantial merit come from the 'margins' of social engagement in acedmic discourse well before they began to have influence and be adtoped more broadly. Need i provide multitude examples of this? Marxism is just one - how many people no wear (albeit significantly misconstrued) a Che Guevara print T-shirt? When social critique pertans to the status quo or what is considered 'normal' in dominant discourse, the responses here are expected. They further illustrate the tenacity of such critiques. The recent comments by 'I eat meat' very clearly illustrate this. Further to this, not all academic papers are either published (i.e. conference proceedings, dissertations, etc. This is where most new concepts receive significant attention) or published in readily available sources outside academia. These again indicate how many positions for deletion included above are not consistent. Carnism is an ideology, if unmarked, just like sexism (and many others) is. At a time sixism was considered 'normal' and thus an ideology. I think i have made some clear points and hope people address the issue at hand with a reflexive critical awareness and not in a similar vein to some of those above. This issue is worthy of such critical consideration and, as such, very worthy of being included in Wikipedia.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.79.137.49 (talk • contribs) 10:19, 2 September 2006.

• • • Comment You, a supporter of keeping the term on Wikipedia, have actually just given the strongest reason to delete so far. "It is a relatively new term which is directly reflected in its limited 'visible' usage. This is also sigificantly restrictetd to academia." According to our guideline on Neologisms (WP:NEO), a neologism of that sort is precisely the kind of word that does not deserve an article on Wikipedia. People wear a Che Guevara print T-shirt. That has entered the social zeitgeist. Assuming that you're actually correct about this term being encyclopedic, come back in ten years when it's reached that level of popularity. Come back when it has achieved substantial "critical consideration" that you think it deserves. In the meantime, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for Melanie Joy and others to try to spread a vegetarian ideology, or to make some kind of point about social consciousness. Captainktainer * Talk 14:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.