Template:Did you know nominations/psychology of eating meat

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Jolly Ω Janner 03:48, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Psychology of eating meat

(

)

~~... that the psychology of eating meat is relevant to both marketing meat and to advocates of reduced meat consumption?~~

Created by FourViolas (talk). Nominated by Jonathunder (talk) at 23:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC).

Is Quid Pro Quo required for this nomination? Fiddle Faddle 01:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to review a nomination. Jeanette Dousdebes Rubio appears to be the oldest one that hasn't been touched. Jonathunder (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

N.B. 358 words were copied from another article, most of which were subsequently cut down to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. The draft is currently at 2,142 words, so the fivefold-expansion requirement is satisfied. FourViolas (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Alternate hook (more exciting):

ALT 1 ... that research into the psychology of eating meat suggests a correlation between meat-eating and support for hierarchy and inequality?

See Loughan 2014, p. 105 (secondary source); Wilson 2007, p. 79 (primary source with review of earlier literature); Allen 2002, p. 53 (primary source). FourViolas (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The original hook is more within the spirit of a juxtaposition of paradoxical opposites than ALT 1. Perhaps you can design an exciting ALT 2 in that spirit? ALT 1 at present does not invite me in. I am curious about the terms used, but not curious enough to find out more. Fiddle Faddle 00:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

ALT 2 ... that thinking of animals as food prompts people to think of them as less intelligent?

(On the grounds that "thinking of"="psychology" and "animals as food"="meat".) Jonathunder's original suggestion is an excellent choice as well; the topic might be provocative enough that a flashy hook is unnecessary. FourViolas (talk) 01:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Full review needed; please review both ALT hooks. (Original hook has been struck.) BlueMoonset (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: None required.

Invalid status "Y" - use one of "y", "?", "maybe", "no" or "again"

Thanks for your review. There are lots of sources, so it's no wonder you missed the literature reviews among them: e.g. Font-i-Furnols 2014, Rozin 2004, and Garnier 2003, not to mention Loughnan 2014, which was used to support ALT1 and, as a respectably published literature review from within 5 years, would certainly satisfy MEDRS.

However, I disagree that MEDRS applies. The subject of the article is social psychology, not clinical psychology at all; only one paper deals with restrained eating [1], and the cited material is secondary. This could be cut if necessary. As for the rest, implicit attitudes towards meat and discussions of cognitive dissonance are not "biomedical information". You wouldn't go to your doctor and say, "I need help; I don't usually think about animal suffering while purchasing meat." FourViolas (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

May I ask why the original hook was struck? Jonathunder (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging BlueMoonset. To be clear, I have no objection to it whatsoever; I was just ungraciously adding the possibilities I'd been considering myself. FourViolas (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I struck the original hook because I agreed that it was unexciting: "is relevant to" sucks all the interest out of what comes after, and is vague besides. I would have no objections to another hook with a similar premise but worded so it is more interesting. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to ping you both, FourViolas and Jonathunder. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. ALT1, at least, is unambiguously well-sourced, to a respectably-published recent literature review. Owlsmcgee has agreed that MEDRS does not apply, except to one sentence for which it has been satisfied. I've edited the article extensively to represent the material more cautiously, in most places in fact much more cautiously than the sources (both primary and secondary) do. FourViolas (talk) 22:26, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

ALT 2 is far too broad, once again, we're stating as fact something from a handful of studies; I'm just not comfortable with saying it's "true" without additional qualifications, such as "some studies suggest" or whatever. ALT1, though, seems ready to go. It's verified in the Loughnan source (a review article that then itself cites three sources for the claim) so I feel OK with it as phrased. Good to go. Good work with this article and the improvements we've gone through! Sorry to be such a stickler. ---Owlsmcgee (talk) 07:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Not at all; thank you for all your helpful attention! FourViolas (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)