This page is for discussing the contents of Chicken Wings.

Comments below were moved from the main page. Points of discussion:

1) Whether the entry about Chicken Wings is too "pro-chicken wing" and not enough "anti-chicken wing." 2) Whether it's better to have a few paragraphs of pro-vegan on every non-vegan food entry, or whether it's better to make a page about Ethical Eating or something like that and link to it from every page (to prevent duplication of content).

2a) Or both: a paragraph about vegan/vegetarian/ethical buying options that are specific to the foodstuff being discussed. Ethical buying meaning cruelty free, fair wage, no-hormone, local, or non-factory farm, as even many omnivores have various considerations even when choosing to eat meat. This would also be an obvious place to link to a general entry about the overall topic.

I don't know things work in the Netherlands, but in America we have freedom of speech and freedom of / from religion ~SD

What the ## is this? What do The Netherlands have to do with this? Now I am suddenly against free opinion? Oh no, I am not. To me this seems the meat eaters are ruling all over again, and suppressing the minority (vegans and vegetarians). ConstantiaOomen

If you want to add a comment, go ahead, but maybe it's better to start a discussion above

You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.

2012-11-20 09:21:44   Poor chickens, people eating their wings. So glad that I am vegan, good for the world, good for yourself. And I object to the tone of this page "You can get the whole wings and break them down yourself;" That is SO gross. Recommending to eat these poor creatures wings. It's not healthy too. This is no Wiki page but a page of a BAD cookbook. —ConstantiaOomen

You are normally very open minded and a beacon of positivity and goodwill. I don't know what to say Daubert

2012-11-20 11:37:43  ^^^^^ typical high horse vegan comment. —aroach12

2012-11-20 13:57:10   @ Daubert Exactly. A positive and open minded person doesn't promote cruelty towards animals. Chickens are my favorite birds and they are the most lovely and innocent creatures in the world. To promote on Davis Wiki - like this was an ordinary cookbook without any consideration towards modern world and modern insights about meat - to break their wings and eat them, like there is no friendly ánd healthy (for everybody) vegan/vegetarian alternative, thát is not of this time anymore. Do you break your own arms and eat them? Don't do to others what you don't want to happen to yourself. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-20 14:00:06   @ aroach12 Fortunately I know that there are a lot of vegans and vegetarians in Davis. This 'break the wings of a bird' page on Davis Wiki does not in any way contribute to environmentally conscious, modern world. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-20 14:17:40   You do realize that separating the wing isn't done while the bird is alive, right? It's no different from preparing any type of meat, be it a leg of lamb, a flank steak, or whatever.

If someone broke my arms and ate them before I was dead, yeah, I'd be pretty upset. If they did it after I kicked the bucket, while I might have some subjective objections in the abstract, I can't say I would have any objective objection. —TomGarberson

2012-11-20 14:23:52   It still doesn't change the fact that your original comment added zero value to this wiki page. I come to this page to find info about chicken wings....not to hear vegan elitism. —aroach12

2012-11-20 14:30:45   @ Tom - Chickens are hardly allowed to die of natural age and if you are aware of present practices in meat and chicken industry, you would be disgusted like I am. If you would be not, then I have to wonder if you have a heart? It's all over the news every day, eating meat - in all forms - is not only unhealthy, it is cruel, unnecessary and a disaster for the environment.

I don't have to be silent about every thing that is being said here on the Davis Wiki. I live here too and I defend my friends - the birds and animals - who cannot speak up for themselves. A lot of animals, and I think even most of them, are very aware in their final minutes and feel a lot of pain and stress, and above all: anxiety. Would you want to end up that way? People are animals too, but they DO have a choice (animals have not) and they are NOT the crown of creation. Eating fruit, nuts and veggies is a lot better for this world and a lot less energy consuming. —ConstantiaOomen Actually eating meat in the form of buying and support local farms who specifically aren't cruel and are environmentally friendly bucks the trends your blanket statements lay down. Call it morbid curiosity but how was being a vegan in the EU? Strictly in the terms of ease of sourcing said nuts fruits and veggies.Daubert

2012-11-20 14:33:56   @ aroach12 This is Wiki and no monotone cookbook. You should be informed that eating meat/chicken wings in modern times like these is bad for your health, bad for the environment and bad for the chickens. Do you ever wonder whó is on your plate? That was an animal personality, like you yourself are a personality. Wiki is not only about you, but about the environment, the animals and me too. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-20 14:40:14   @aroach12 I think Constantias comments add a lot of value to this page. Why do you only want to see the positive things (wich are written on this page) while the so obvious negative parts are nowhere to be found? A wiki is there to give information, so I think a paragraph should be written with the negative sides of chicken wings too so people can also see that part of the story. —JeroenPost

2012-11-20 15:03:15   So, I get your objections, Constantia. I'm just not quite sure what you'd like to do about it. Do you think we should delete this page? I created the page with the idea of allowing people interested in something in Davis to be able to share information about that thing with others interested in it in Davis. It's pretty fundamental to the wiki's operation. Should we also nuke pages about drugs, smoking, the meat lab, drinking, crossing train tracks, etc.? —TomGarberson

2012-11-20 16:02:59   @ Tom. Just don't make it so monotonous and allow comments that show the dark side of meat and chicken industry, because there is: a very dark and unpleasant side. There is more than 'Eat chicken wings and just don't ever think about it carefully'. Maybe there should be - like Jeroen suggested - a paragraph with scientific resources about the down side of meat, Peta links and relevant information like that. —ConstantiaOomen

  • I am somewhat sympathetic to this, but I am not sure it makes sense to put it on this page. There is also, e.g., a hamburgers page and a steak page. It would not make sense to have the same information repeated across pages. So, there could be a separate page that each of the "meat-eating" pages linked to, but it would need to have some Davis-specific content in it. —cp
    • To me, this seems like a good idea. Certainly Constantia is right when she says that she is not the only local that feels this way. I have a feeling that the vegan and other similar entries don't quite capture this slice of Davis culture well. I fear it may be difficult to sum up, and near impossible to give a encompassing title to, but it is worth a shot. -jw
      • Animal Cruelty, as aroach12 suggests below? But that potentially includes animal testing, too, which gets a bit of discussion on the California National Primate Research Center page. Or Ethical Eating? (Note that we have a Local Foods page, which arguably also falls under ethical eating). Or? (I think JW is right — it is hard to come up with a good name). Why Be Vegan, maybe? —cp
        • Ethical Eating sounds good. I think it's sufficiently distinct from local foods. Then I think we could have sections on that page for Why be a Vegan, Why be a Vegetarian, Why be an Omnivore, etc. That way, anybody who feels like adding a section can do so without it turning into a huge debate (hopefully). The challenge is making the page Davis-centric, but I think it can be done. -SM

2012-11-20 16:59:41   @Jeroen The problem I had was: no links or useful information was provided. "I am vegan, good for the world, good for yourself", "It's not healthy too", and "that eating meat/chicken wings in modern times like these is bad for your health, bad for the environment and bad for the chickens" are nice statements, but they provided me nothing more than a baseless opinion. Back up your opinions with fact.

If your going to show the negative side of chicken wings, then you should also make the same statements for every establishment dealing with meat or meat products (all non-vegan restaurants, grocery stores, etc). Should all these pages have a small paragraph about animal cruelty? My personal opinion is that there should be a dedicated page about animal cruelty and it can be discussed there. We do not need to discuss this issue (or add a small paragraph) on every wiki page that has anything to do with meat. —aroach12

2012-11-20 21:09:22   I thank Jeroen, CP and JB for some support in this matter. Moreover, everything that is being done here, is not for me, but for the chickens and in a broader sense for the animals. Look at this too, just in: Of course this is quite similar and all the more topical.

Somebody said he was disappointed in me here, making a comment about the chicken wings. Well, I am disappointed too. In Davis Wiki, that is. I never thought of Davis Wiki as an ordinary, pro meat and pro chicken suffering propaganda/cook book, and just read this page: it is, it truly is.

Is it so difficult to build in some honesty here, about the whole picture, not only the half of it? —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-20 21:26:25   @ aroach12 Read carefully, I do give arguments. I say animals are lovely creatures like people are (at least: some people are). That there is in general no need to eat them anymore, that there are sufficient vegan and vegetarian alternatives. Furthermore you sound like if you never read the newspapers, about what is wrong in the meat industry, with meat itself in relation to your body, with the environment. And how much of nature's space is being destroyed just to provide mass livestock feed. How mistreated chickens and all the other animals are and how they suffer, being held captive their whole life long (being born in a prison they can never escape), being slaughtered the wrong way. Jeroen and I were suggesting a paragraph about the other side of this. Don't tell me there is no backup for this 'opinion'. It is by far not an 'opinion' anymore, and not by far only carried by me. —ConstantiaOomen

Constantia, the Davis Wiki isn't pro or anti meat. It's just a resource for people in the community. As long as there are people in the community who are pro meat and people who are anti meat, it should serve both of those interests. If you think anti meat opinions are underrepresented, by all means, present yours. But the notion that because you disagree with what's on the page, the page shouldn't exist is contrary to the whole idea of the wiki. And, by the same token, if I happen to disagree with what's on another page, that doesn't mean that page shouldn't exist. It just means that people disagree about things. That's human nature. —tg

2012-11-20 21:39:36   @ Tom This page is/wás pro meat, as in: pro chicken suffering. How else would you call this describing in all colors and scents of how to eat wings of an innocent bird? If I want a cookbook that is pro meat recipes, I can buy one (but of course: I don't), I don't go to the Davis Wiki. This is not objective at all* and sure not representative of the whole of Davis. It is no friendly gesture to all the vegans and vegetarians in Davis; however this is in this matter not the most important facet, because the chickens (and animals in general) are the ones suffering most.

* Let me backup this, by citing just one piece of a sentence of the main introduction text: "Wings come in the delicious and wonderful bone-in form and,"

Tell me now, is this an objective text, not pro meat?? And: I didn't say this page should not exist. But it should contain the shadow side as well. In detail.


Right. It's not objective text. It's not intended to be objective text. The wiki doesn't have a position, but it's here to represent the viewpoints of people of all sorts throughout Davis. It's a resource for the people of Davis, documenting things in Davis. The good and the bad, whatever may fit into those two categories. —tg

I think the page has been written by pro-meat editors because it implies a very specific piece of meat; therefore, most vegetarians or vegans would never even find this page because they wouldn't really want to click on it or search for it. The chickens page is somewhat more pro-live-chicken for example. —ScottMeehleib

2012-11-21 07:53:36   @ Scott - I have found this page, and everybody else can too, just by clicking 'Recent Changes'. "Recent Changes" is like reading the newspaper, and I read newspapers all the time. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-21 11:42:14   This is SO typical. Removing negative comments. I thought this was everybody's Wiki, not only the Wiki for meat and chicken consumers? —ConstantiaOomen

  • It was moved to allow people to discuss the content and how to change it. This is no longer a discussion about a Davis relevant topic of Chicken Wings, but rather a discussion about wiki content. Yes, it is the typical action, and whoever did it did so because it is typical. We can discuss here, get into complicated threads, then figure out a solution and implement it together. -jw

2012-11-21 12:33:19   Constantia, what resolution do you want here? —TomGarberson

2012-11-21 12:48:00   @ Tom Just Keep the meat and chicken-meat etc. pages objective and leave out remarks like 'wonderful', 'delightful' in the main, introductory text; you are not speaking for me, to me meat isn't delightful at all, and I am sure it isn't to the slaughtered animals as well.

Moreover: you sound quite commercial, like in promoting the chicken wings and the Nugget. I thought we all agreed that Davis Wiki is not an unilateral, commercial thing, and it shouldn't be. Furthermore, links can be submitted under each meat etc. page, to a vegan/vegetarian alternative and cruelty free page. —ConstantiaOomen

  • How terrible it would be if writing about things had to be objective. Have you never celebrated anything in words? It would be tragic if you couldn't call out eating chicken as tragic, and express your horror at the concept. -jw
  • I agree with Constantia on the concern over promoting a market's specific item (in this case Nugget's wings)—i think saying they're cage free is fine but "high quality" is quite subjective according to the person who eats it (and again is commerically promoting). Otherwise if you don't eat meat, I suggest avoiding this page as I would never choose to post on a vegetarian-related page as I am personally not vegetarian. —PeteB
    • Sorry, where's this promotion going on? I'm not disagreeing, I just don't see what you guys are talking about. Unless you mean the ratings, in which case... OK, let's just delete the whole page. But I don't think there are any ratings related to the Nugget. A page on Beer is a great place to talk about which place has the best selection (the Shoppe), which places have good selections, which places have good prices, and any unusual or unusually good deals or beers (the Sudwerk's Dock Store). If that's promotional, then let's just delete the whole wiki. —tg
    • I'm withdrawing from this discussion-Tom your change on the beer page made me realize I think I am being drawn too far into constantia's belief which is going to far and I apologize. -PeteB

I stand by my words, and I came to this conclusion thru lots of trial and error. The Rocky Jr Drummettes are of exceptional quality for a pre everything'd wing. Better than foster farms, more local, less cruelty etc. Daubert

2012-11-21 13:37:52   @ JW

I have written four books! and I certainly know how to find pleasure in language. In fact: I love writing and enjoy doing it (English is not my native language) . But these words like 'delightful' in a main text about chicken wings and eating them, is by no means 'delightful language' to me. I hope you know the difference, this Davis Wiki should be educational ánd fun, but fun to everybody, not only to the half. And yes, I see these pages, because I always browse the 'Recent Changes' stuff. —ConstantiaOomen

  • One way to make the wiki for everyone is to attempt to make all of the pages "objective" by removing any language that might be construed as involving subjectivity, opinion, or partisanship. However, the result would be quite dry. A better way to make the wiki for everyone, in my opinion, is to attempt to have pages reflect the multiplicity of opinions that are in Davis; that would mean that we would restore the language you deleted from the chicken wing page, but add some text reflect your opinion as well to the main part of the entry, with a link out to another page for more detailed discussion. Wouldn't that be better? —cp

2012-11-21 14:06:02   So should we do the same for all topics? I went ahead and started with beer in this edit. Because opinions and expressions of good or bad are BAD! —TomGarberson (note: further conformity in art) (even more so here and for the co-op here)

2012-11-21 15:50:30   @ CP I do not agree, the text about this chicken wings thing is much better now. This is more like a Wiki page should be, descriptive, not highly commercial and recommending things that are very doubtful. The statement about Nugget should go too. I am very amazed that this has stood here for so long, and nobody felt he/she should do something about it. I can recommend people or businesses too, that is IN THE COMMENTS, not in the main text. —ConstantiaOomen

I added that remark two days ago to flesh out the body of the article with more info and my personal opinion. You aren't silencing me and you will have to learn to live with that. Why don't you go work on banning halal food? Animals are exsanguinated and clearly suffer. Also you never answered my question as to how easy it was to live a vegan lifestyle in the Netherlands Daubert

2012-11-21 15:50:30   @ CP I do not agree, the text about this chicken wings thing is much better now. This is more like a Wiki page should be, descriptive, not highly commercial and recommending things that are very doubtful or to say the least: doubtful. The statement about Nugget should go too. I am very amazed that this has stood here for so long, and nobody felt he/she should do something about it. I can recommend people or businesses too, that is IN THE COMMENTS, not in the main text. —ConstantiaOomen

  • Hunh? Go for it! If you have something to recommend, do so with a strong voice: this is your wiki, and you should feel free to do so. There is no "main text": all text is the voice of the community of Davis. Don't invent lines to contain the color of your soul. Please don't restrict and limit yourself because you feel like you don't have the authority to voice your viewpoint! This is the specific place to do so, and outside of being considerate so as to allow others to do the same, there's no restrictions in doing so. Please recommend things! Write poetic odes to awesome things! Lambaste and tear down that which is wrong! That's what the wiki is for: to give the community a place to share the cool stuff each one of us knows about Davis, especially the little known treasures! -jw

Thanks for the clarification JW Daubert

2012-11-21 16:01:46   CO, you are deleting the voices of others, silencing them, as a way of trying to make the wiki welcoming to all. But how can it be welcoming if people's views are silenced or banished to a restricted area? Far better to add your own voice, which I encourage you to do. —CovertProfessor

2012-11-21 16:02:38   @ JW Appreciate it!, and I will, but I think we all should agree here that recommendations with words like "delectable" should be made in the comments section and not in the main text, like it was in this Chicken Wings Page. And certainly not putting "Nugget" in the main text, as the place to go. —ConstantiaOomen —— Edit conflict! Your version: —— Cut that comment bar out + welcome to the wiki —— Edit conflict! Other version: ——

2012-11-21 16:04:13   @ CP You misunderstand me. I hear the voice of Tom in the main text with words like "delectable" and this should be found in the comment section. There Tom and I can give our opinions, not in the main text. But anyhow: some text/links to cruelty free pages should be given in the main text, because this coin has two sides, not one. Like all coins do. —ConstantiaOomen —— End of edit conflict ——

2012-11-21 16:14:58   I do not agree that opinions should be banished to the comments area, as though they were distasteful, less valuable, or less informative. I think my views on this topic are on the page that Daubert linked to, on the Cut that comment bar out page. —CovertProfessor

2012-11-21 16:21:11   @ CP So it seems people like Jeroen and I have nothing to say and are overruled by the people ruling here. And so you will overrule everything I said and have done in this matter? Within two days the Chicken Wings page is the same old page like Tom made it and you act as if I have never tried to improve this page? Well, that seems dictatorial to me, sorry to say that. —ConstantiaOomen

  • I have, several times now, encouraged you to add your views to the page. You are the one who is deleting the opinions of others. Who is being dictatorial? —cp

2012-11-21 16:22:35   @ CP and what exactly is the adding value of opinions of Tom about how much he delights in eating chicken wings in the main text? —ConstantiaOomen

So because you don't agree, I can't express it? —tg

The value is that it turns a bland page into something interesting to read — perhaps not interesting to you, but interesting to others. (I am interested in some pages but not others). The value is that it provides perspectives that express the multiplicity of views in Davis — or it would, if you would add your views and not seek to remove those of others. A really good page would tell me what views are about chicken wings — which ones people liked, as well as why I perhaps shouldn't be eating them in the first place. —cp

2012-11-21 16:39:54   @ Tom - Not in the main text and not without expressing this is only your opinion and by far not the opinion of the whole of Davis and certainly not my opinion. Is this so difficult, to show some consideration to the people who love animals ánd don't eat them? If you all will restore this old text and act like I and Jeroen's and my comments never existed, I say: shame on you. —ConstantiaOomen

  • Are you ignoring the fact that CP, myself and others are trying to figure out the best way to add that position (rather than removing a different one)? Read through the proposals at the top of this page under "2". Is there any outcome that does not present that consideration? That's going to happen, even if you and your significant other never edit the wiki again: there's going to be that perspective added. For one thing, it's not anywhere a unique perspective, even among the editors you seem to feel are somehow "against you", but have — in actual reality — been working to showcase that same point of view from the very beginning of all of this. Just in a more comprehensive manner across the wiki as a whole. If anything, you're dissuading that effort by simply exhausting the initial goodwill toward that idea. -jw

2012-11-21 16:48:49   @ CP You do not understand a single word that I have said. Tom can express his opinion, but this text is just too awful for words. —ConstantiaOomen


You deleted other people's views. How is that not dictatorial? How is that being welcoming to all views? There are many views that I find repulsive, but I would still defend the expression of them. —cp

2012-11-21 16:56:38   @ Tom Why do you shout like that? I realize the meat eaters are in the majority here, but it would show some great decency if you would write your texts thinking about animals, vegans and vegetarians too. In this case: do not exaggerate your text, do no recommend Nugget and make it more objective. And you did not do that, you didn't even think about 'us'. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-21 16:57:45   @ CP I only deleted opinion words of TOM in the main text. But go right ahead, restore it. Show your true character. —ConstantiaOomen

  • So, you want us to respect your opinion, even though you don't respect Tom's? I don't follow. —cp

2012-11-21 17:02:50   @ CP OMG You only want to see what you have in your mind already. Tom is not God and his opinion does not need to be in the main text. You are not God as well, and I think there are more vegetarians and vegans who do not let their voices be heard here, who really dislike texts like these. My god, this whole "Chicken Wings" page is one load of pro meat opinions, and there came Constantia, saying something, and whoops, the whole male Wiki crew is stepping all over me. —ConstantiaOomen

  • Pardon me, but my gender is none of your business. You presume, for myself and at least one other person here. -jw
  • Gender is irrelevant here, as is "Wiki crew." The problem is that the proposed provegan edits are severely deviating from the general direction of the page history. —JudithTruman

2012-11-21 17:04:50   CO, things are not always as they appear. All opinions are welcome in the main text, including yours, and including vegans. I encourage you to ADD yours to the main text. Again. —CovertProfessor

2012-11-21 17:08:45   I read the Chicken Wings page as similar to the Pizza page: discussion of a particular food item that is available at a range of price points and styles of preparation. It does not seem to me as though an ethical discussion of meat sourcing belongs on the page, because that is not the difference between the different preparations. I support the idea of creating an "Ethical Eating" topic page, perhaps to highlight restaurants/vendors who source primarily local, organic, fair-trade, etc components, or a how-to/why-to guide, though by extension, such a page may mislead, causing people to assume that if a restaurant is not on the "Ethical" page, then it is Shady in some fashion. Keeping a mention of Nugget as a source of Rocky Jr wings seems appropriate; Nugget house-brand free-range chicken is Petaluma Poultry regular line. I think the Co-Op also has Rocky Jr as their in-house chicken. Quality is objective within meat processing. If meat animals are stressed before killing, the metabolic processes involved yield genuinely poor-quality meat; slaughterhouses generally seek to minimize stress. The USDA has guidelines for quality designations of meats (Prime, Choice, etc). A "Meat Processing" page would cover practices at the Meat Lab, Branigans Turkey, Yolo Land & Cattle, and maybe Superior Farms (Dixon) as local processors, and maybe contrast to larger operations and/or what distinguishes organic meats from conventional. —JudithTruman

2012-11-21 17:08:23   @ CP - Sure you want me to. And that really makes one coherent text. Tom flying on wings that are not even his own (namely: chicken wings), me flying on my own wings... Sure. I still suggest subjective words should not be in this main text and links to something like Peta are needed to settle the balance. —ConstantiaOomen

Have you looked at the link SD provided? Cut that comment bar out

2012-11-21 17:21:13   @ JW Your gender is very clear to me (male), so it does matter. Why are there so little female editors here on the Davis Wiki? Any logic explanation? —ConstantiaOomen

  • First off, that is *obscenely* offensive. Do *not* presume to dictate to me my gender, and don't casually toss out a binary assumption that excludes a large number of people in society. -jw

2012-11-21 17:29:04   @ Judith I was just wondering why the 'head' editors (the ones who are always there, one can see who I mean by looking at the statistics) are all male. This does feel intimidating to me. A whole group of men falling over me. And where are the other vegans and vegetarians to say something? I am really disappointed. —ConstantiaOomen

  • Constantia—Please stop making this about gender. As to the other vegans/vegetarians—why is that our fault? We can't MAKE people post. If other people wish to post they will. —PeteB

2012-11-21 17:30:41   @ JW -So now you are angry. Well, the world has male and female residents, and you are a male. I do see differences. —ConstantiaOomen

  • Understand: you are greatly hurting me right now, and you are treading into extraordinarily personal space. I am currently ascribing your offensive statements to mere ignorance. Please do not assume gender. It is very much none of your business. -jw

2012-11-21 17:44:20   @ JW Now my own comments are removed by you? Wow, this is so great. —ConstantiaOomen

2012-11-21 17:46:18   Let me restore a part of my comment, that JW just removed! >>

But it is a good thing you feel anger. Then you maybe will understand what I feel when I see people stepping all over animals who cannot defend themselves, because THAT really hurts me. —ConstantiaOomen and wiki demographics have lots of discussion on this matter as well ~SD

2012-11-21 18:24:58 Humanity wouldn't be where we are in terms of brain development and cultural progress were it not for our species' shift to meat eating. A bunch of animals are opportunistic with regard to eating meat when needed/available. This has *nothing* to do with the availability of certain dishes in the Davis Town Foodscape. As I said above, Chicken Wings and Pizza are two similar pages about common omnivore foods. The Wiki has focused pages on a double handful of food items and food types. It even has (but not /Vegetarian) and I just really don't see why a purveyor-overview page would need to be shifted to a focus on industrial processing. —JudithTruman Thanks again Judith Daubert

2012-11-21 18:39:26   @ Judith I understand you are a fan of chicken meat. That says enough. —ConstantiaOomen

  • You want women to post/be involved but then you dismiss and disrespect them because they have a different view. Get over yourself, Contantia.


  • I am a fan of chicken meat, yes. Also duck, quail, guinea fowl, pig, cow, and deer. ALSO beans, tofu, grains, fruits, vegetables, seasonings. You have no idea what my standard dietary composition is, where I shop, how I allocate my grocery budget. I'm not a "meat meat sports beer" kind of person. I am, however, keenly fond of food processing knowledge, of all varieties and food categories. I am super-keen on balancing protein in my diet, plant and animal alike. Had my ancestors not had meat, I wouldn't be here (Switzerland and Sweden are both snowy over the winter). I don't think you understand that for meat eaters, there are a lot of different variables in pre-and-post production that affect the desirability of any particular animal-based food. I don't partake of fast food as a preference, but I'm not going to denigrate those who genuinely enjoy it for their choices. I agree that large-scale meat production does have some lamentable characteristics, but that does not make all meat production unethical. Off the wiki, I spend FAR more time promoting heirloom bean producers than I do discussing meat. —JudithTruman

2012-11-21 18:48:37   3% of Americans are vegetarian or vegan. If you can't handle reading about something that 97% of Americans do, you might be advised not to click on pages about meat.

OR, you could do what has been suggested over and over and over and over again and add content to the wiki, instead of trying to remove it. You could add information about ethical eating and vegetarianism and veganism. You could add viewpoints and try to convince or inform people about your views. I have a lot of vegetarian friends, and a few vegan friends. I've dated vegetarians. I've hosted vegetarians for Thanksgiving. I cook vegetarian a couple of nights a week, and often invite my vegetarian friends over on those nights. I have never met anyone as rude or intolerant about it as you apparently are.

Some people eat meat. Some people like meat. Some people are going to discuss preparing and/or eating meat. That's a fact of life. I'm sure you're well aware of that fact, and I'm sure you've dealt with it all your life. If you can't handle it, you really, really, really need to not click on links about meat.

I'm offended by smoking. I don't stick my face into a smoke cloud and yell at the person smoking about how they need to stop offending me. Because that would be stupid. Instead, I just avoid smoke, and if someone is aggressively in my face I might occasionally (like twice in my life) ask them to smoke elsewhere.

I happen to like chicken wings. A lot. They're one of my favorite foods. Along with a vegetarian burrito recipe, lasagna (with or without meat), and a vegan cream of butternut soup recipe I make a few times a year. I'm not going to stop eating chicken wings. I'm not going to stop talking about eating them. And I happen to know that many other people on the wiki like eating them and appreciate the information on this very page. I have had strangers walk up to me on the street and talk to me about chicken wings because they recognized me from this page and my profile. It's obviously a resource people like. Removing it or gutting it would be a disservice to Davis and to the wiki.

Constantia, throughout this conversation you have been aggressive and as offensive to others as talk of meat apparently is to you. The difference is, I didn't go looking for something to be offended by. You compare Recent Changes to a newspaper. Do you read any newspapers? Do you ever look at the food sections or columns? Do you read the restaurant reviews where they talk about how juicy the steak is at Morton's, or how tender the prime rib is, or how the pink medium rare of a perfectly prepared rack of lamb is pleasing to the eye? Do you then go to those newspapers and throw a fit and tell them that they can't write that? If so, good luck with that. If not, how about you cut it out here? You're being unreasonable and you're apparently in denial about the diets of people around the world.

Go do something constructive on the wiki instead of picking fights. —TomGarberson

  • Thanks for this. -JT
    • I would concur wholeheartedly with the above statement(s) Daubert

2012-11-21 19:11:30   To all, then please overrule this aggressive, insensitive being (who cries over animals and their fate) and restore this Davis Wiki to old 'glory'. Never mind, you won't hear me again. —ConstantiaOomen

OK, or instead of ragequitting you could


2012-11-21 19:32:04   Perhaps we should do just that, since CO seems to mainly want to suppress others' views, fling insults, and play the victim, not have a genuine discussion. And then we can try to add some other perspectives to the page. —CovertProfessor