Talk:Environmental vegetarianism/Archive 1

message: I have initiated editing this article to better reflect the science (with solid back up) to reflect why environmental vegetarians have chosen so. There is a ton of source material in this article now. I have also tried to remain sympathetic to to those on the other side of the fence on this and included much of what was previously written. It was very much POV and not much source material was provided for. I think EVERYONE find much of the reference material solid and from reliable sources. 
Those of you interested in staving of attacks from those who do not share an environmental vegetarian motive in their edits, please join in the opposition. There happen to be a number of activists who don't think much of vegetarians and are quite active in edits to these sites. Vagget 14:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Idleguy, please take note of the fact that the tag you use at the top of the article states "This template should only be on talk pages". 64.105.20.237 17:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Idleguy, as you have tagged this page as of DEC 1, I would very much like to initiate discussion with you on the how this article is this article is NPOV and not Worldwide view. Give your explanations please. You have opened up a can of worms here and it is not going to end anytime soon. Your response has been nonexistant thus far, other than edits intended to initiate dicussion. However , Idleguy has chosen not to do so. RESPOND. 64.105.20.237 16:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Idleguy, the onus is on you. I will continue to provide solid source material on this page. The next on my list is the U.N. and particularly the World Health Organization. Now, I realize you don't agree with why vegetarians become so. In particular, environmental vegetarians who give credence to ecological science. Do you perhaps lend no credibility to organizations like the the NAS (with 170 Nobel Prize winners), or the USDA or other scientists from respectable learning institutions? The academic sources continue to flood you. However, unlike NOAH you will not remain as a survivor after all is said and done. Just waiting for you. RESPOND. 64.105.20.237 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Stop attacking Idleguy. --Viriditas 10:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would dispute the label of this as an "attack." Idleguy's user page makes it clear that he loves biryani, a rice dish, apparently with meat, too. Both Rice and Meat are very resource-intensive to produce, Idleguy has before used particular placement of information in a confusing manner. This is all true. Canaen 10:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Just the Facts

message: Attacks can be found here: 
:No personal attacks please. - FrancisTyers 23:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Personal Attacks, the opening line is a direct quote from Idleguy's user page; that hardly qualifies. As for the rest, I would suggest this qualifier: "this is what happened in a previous Vegetarian article," or something similar, and a rewording of the content. Canaen 10:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the personal attack.  --Viriditas 10:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I understand your reasoning (or, I assume to, on a level of common decency), and I agree that what was said does not belong here, I'm not sure how in-line your removal of somone else's content from a talk page. I can liken it to a violation of free speech very quickly. Simply asking the user in question to remove their own material might be a much better solution.Canaen 10:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. --Viriditas 05:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please Review the disclaimer at the top of the page reading: "This guideline is disputed.", the first lin reading "This is not official policy.", Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI, and Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks. Canaen 08:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't see a point in continuing this "discussion" much further. We disagree; fine. I'm sure we can both spend our time in better ways than this. Canaen 08:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks removed

message: I remember reading that cows have driven several plant speicies to extinction/near extinction.  can anyone back this up? Eds01 22:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have references for this in particular, however: In places such as the Sierra Nevada, Cattle Grazing has been a problem ever since Cattle arrived with the Spanish. Farmers let their Cattle loose all Summer in the Mountains to graze so that they don't have to feed them, and the mountains get their meadows trampled, flora devastated, and Hikers / Backpackers / anyone who loves the wilderness gets to step in Cow Dung all the time. It's a constant issue between Environmentalists and Ranchers, so I'm sure I can find some resources, when I have the time. Or someone else could take the initiative. Canaen 10:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I recall reading something about this in a scientific journal recently.  Going by memory, I believe that some plant species suffered while others benefited.  I'll see if I can find the article.--Viriditas 10:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be quite interested to know how a species benefitted from bovine interaction. Perhaps by having their competitors, or some of them, gotten rid of? Canaen 10:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bovine Herbicide

message: I think that having a Worldwide View tag at the top of this page is pointless. Of course, we have a bias in this wikipedia, and it exists everywhere. If I wanted, I could put that disclaimer on Clan Fraser because it doesn't have enough information on what Frasers have done in the Americas, but that'd just be silly. Likewise I could add that tag to the main page, because it says absolutely nothing about Antarctica, but I don't because it'd be just as silly. Every article is always in need of more information, of being more worldly. That doesn't mean that we should tag every single one with an ugly disclaimer at the top. Not to mention, the tagger hasn't done anything at all to fix the problem, and hasn't contributed anything at all to the article in 4 days. Canaen 04:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag exists for a reason and it isn't silly unless one decides to plaster it in every article which is not the case with this or any other tag. Also any attempts by me to fix the bias have only met with reverts and outright deletions by some who are determined to display only their POV here and elsewhere. --Idleguy 04:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The tag stays. - FrancisTyers 11:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Idleguy, we've just got over the nonsense in Veganism, please don't try to start it again. Muttering it under your breath doesn't make it any less clear whom you are attempting to discredit, and I ask that you stop making accusations of me every time something that you've done comes under criticism. It's old. Canaen 23:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide View 

message: This link would be suitable for the Diet for a New America page. - FrancisTyers 00:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh cool, its already there. - FrancisTyers 00:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes it would. The "See Also" is a good compromise, that I accept, however, I would still like to know why you deemed the "Environmental Argument" section of it completely irrelevant. Canaen 00:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Your link

message: I've gone over the talk page, and can't seem to find out why the page's neutrality is disputed. Is it? If so, I would appreciate if someone would say why, so that we can fix it. I intend to remove the tag if no one speaks up within a few days. Canaen 00:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed Neutrality 

message: I've NPOV'd the page somewhat, at the same time fixing some grammatical and spelling errors. I think the NPOV tag is almost ready to come off, does anyone have any further objections? - FrancisTyers 19:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. I'm glad someone finally went through the whole thing. Canaen 21:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV