Talk:Veganism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Consumption

PLEASE stop removing the word consumption. You don't use a steak, you CONSUME it. You do not consume leather, you USE it. Before censoring words, pleas read a dictionary before editing. --Sfiga (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Consumption is a subset of use, obviously, and there's no need to repeat in the first sentence all the ways in which animal products could be used. People aren't completely stupid. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

"People aren't completely stupid....." where do you live in a cave?? if not can i move there? wherei live people ARE completely stupid. and they are two different words, I will keep putting the word in as it is more correct. --Sfiga (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Stop with the drama. The current version is clear enough. Kellen^T 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

there is no drama, i am just trying to make the sentence correct. HOW DO YOU USE A STEAK?? answer that and i will stop.

wtf? i thought wikipedia tries to be correct. why are people trying to make incorrect statements? i do not understand why a few are so adamant at using the WRONG WORD! --Sfiga (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that this isn't a dictatorship with you in the center? And that you're WP:EDITWARRING? Kellen^T 07:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga, the sentence you're changing gained consensus in the section above this one. If you want to change it, please try to form a new consensus here on talk.

"Consumption" is a subset of "use"—that is, consumption is a form of use—and there's no point in listing in the first sentence all the ways in which animal products can be "used" (they can be eaten, drunk, worn, etc). "Use" is a generic term that could mean any one—or all—of those practices. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga is correct, slim virgin and kellen are wrong. The term "use" is not a subset of consumption. Although it can be used as a definition to mean the same idea as consumption, the word is a more accurate term than 'use' and should replace 'use'. --71.147.49.125 (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Nobody said that "use" is a subset of "consumption", they said "consumption" is a subset of "use". The article in full makes it quite clear what veganism is, and the lede section only needs to be a general summation - and as it is the overall use of animals to which many vegans object, it seems reasonable enough to use the wider concept in the opening statement -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It amazes me how people are fighting to "dumb down" wikipedia, I only expect that from trolls. this is why wikipedia is banned at my university. our professors told us anyone using wikipedia will get an automatic fail. reason: anyone is allowed to edit and most people do not know how to write or what they are writing about. After reading the discussions here, it is apparent that Slim and kellen have proven to me they will fight to keep poorly written paragraphs and inacurate information in. I have replaced the intro sourced from the Oxford English dictionary. This is an academic definition. So, PLEASE stop reverting back to the poorly writte version. I thought wikipedia strives to improve the access of knowledge. why fight to keep it wrong?

--Sfiga (talk) 13:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Sfiga, you now want to say that veganism may simply be a belief. [4] So a person could be vegan while tucking into a steak in a fancy restaurant, her fur coat draped over the back of her chair, her feet in expensive leather Jimmy Choos. So long as she believes humans ought not to use non-human animal products, but is struggling to put it into practice. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 13:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the definition from the Oxford English dictionary, I am not saying it. You are the one who wants to 'use' a steak instead of consuming it. You really do not seem to understand word choice. why are you doing this? fighting to dumb it down?

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/221868?redirectedFrom=veganism#eid15925772 Pronunciation: /ˈviːgən/ U.S. /ˈvɛdʒən/ Etymology: < veg- (in vegetable n.) + -an suffix. Thesaurus »

1. A person who on principle abstains from all food of animal origin; a strict vegetarian.

Derivatives ˈveganism n. the beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from all food of animal origin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfiga (talk • contribs) 14:06, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for removing belief. The sentence really is fine as it is, and if you read the section above this one, you'll see it gained consensus from several editors. Also, it's best not to rely solely on dictionary definitions, especially from the online versions. See WP:SOURCES for the kinds of sources regarded as reliable. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 14:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't rely solely on online sources and tried to change it to reflect an accurate, independent definition but you and your friend fought me tooth and nail to keep a generic word. you fought to keep it generic and imho wrong. I really hate wikipedia because of so many people who fight to dumbdown articles. I really should stop using it. --The source i used is the paid subscription of the OED, which is the only official version, so your logic of not using an online source fails. OED is a credited source of the english language mr. Cambridge person. You guys love to drop wp templates in defense of common sense, hint: it use your brain, it is more accurate. I guess you have taken 'no original research' to a whole new level. sorry to try and improve wp, won't happen again :(

--Sfiga (talk) 14:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and an article should encompass the various nuances of a concept in a non-prescriptive form. As it says in the article, some vegans abstain from consuming animal products because their ethical opinions lead them to forego all use of animals in any form - thus it is derived from more than just an abstention, and a wider concept exists. So please, stop changing it against the apparent current consensus, and discuss what you want here *before* you make any changes -- edit warring will get you blocked. Also, please try to assume good faith - see WP:AGF, and try to lose the battlefield approach to editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New Section on risks

An entire section needs to be created showing the potential health risks associated with this lifestyle. For instance, the typical vegan is nutritionally deficient in several nutrients that a greater percentage of omnivores are not. 64.121.173.185 (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There already seems to be coverage of potential deficiencies in the various sections, eg in Veganism#Health arguments, Veganism#Vitamin B12, iodine, choline, and Veganism#Iron, calcium, vitamin D, and summarised in the lede - "...caution that poorly planned vegan diets can be deficient in vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. There is enough balance in the article as it stands. It would not be NPOV to start a section like that. If people find the criticisms incomplete, then edit what's there, don't start again. While we're on the point of nutritional imbalance, maybe we should start a section showing the typical non-vegan is health deficient is several areas that a greater percentage of vegans are not? I'm not serious of course, and similarly I don't think this (anonymous) suggestion should be taken seriously.TonyClarke (talk) 23:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It would not be wrong to start a section on risks, indeed it's widely discussed in the news. I came to this article specifically looking for information about children who've died on a vegan diet (there have been *many*) and couldn't find anything. You state "there is enough balance" while completely leaving out a long a protracted series of events in the news over a period of years which is directly related to veganism - demanding that be left out is unbalanced. I wonder if TonyClarke is a vegan... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.3.108 (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Dying on a vegan diet is not the same as dying from a vegan diet, how many of those have there been? Muleattack (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• @89.139.3.108, if you can provide reliable sources to support claims that many children have died from vegan diets, then that can be added to the article - do you have any such sources? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I found 3 references to children dying 'from' vegan diets in the past 30 or so years on Google books (each single instance being referenced by multiple sources, which inflates the perceived number of cases.) The most recent case actually involves fruitarianism. A second case involves a baby named Crown Shakur, who was fed very little food period (and never saw a medical professional at any time in his short life, including delivery). I have few details about the first child (other than Boston, early eighties, parents members of a nonmainstream religious sect). So perhaps those three cases constitute 'many' to the poster. DaveinMPLS (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

New pic

Nice! But does the caption need changing too? I'm not sure what the food in the pic is. DaveinMPLS (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change as to me the picture didn't look at all appetising, there was no consensus to change it and the description wasn't changed like DaveinMPLS mentioned. The picture looks fine to me but a better one is always good. If we're going to change it we need to decide what is wrong (if anything) with the current picture and what traits the new picture should have. I have mentioned before that the picture I really think needs changing is the burger that looks like it has rodent diarrhoea on it about half way down the page so if we're changing pictures can we start with that one? Muleattack (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

What I liked about the new pic was that it looked classy, like something from a high end place. 'Lentil patties' just seem so stereotypically 'hippie food'. I eat stuff like that all the time, so I'm definitely not hating on the item itself. And I agree, that veggie burger should get the chop. DaveinMPLS (talk) 03:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Classy?! With respects to the editor that took that picture, and it's great s/he does take pictures, that picture definately is not classy, it does in fact look really messy, whereas the current picture looks appetizing, as well as classy and neat. Just putting it out there -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 04:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess we have different ideas of class. Glass of wine wins over grilled patty with lettuce for me. Vive la difference. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't all that happy with it either. Maybe we could find something e.g. here: flickr: Vegan Foods ( ONLY) - bought or homemade ? It says there are almost 50,000 pictures in that group alone! And I'm sure we can just ask if we need them to change the licence. TheLastNinja (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead too long

According to the Manual of Style for lead sections, our lead is too long: ideally it should be two or three paragraphs for an article of this size (15,000–30,000 characters). Any ideas to how it can be shortened? I'm inclined to leave the 3 first paragraphs and move everything else (the statements by the dietetic associations and the heart association, nutrients of concern etc.) to appropriate sections in the article body. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree. The lead should be a general overview or outline. Specifics (such as those mentioned) should be kept to whatever section is appropriate. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks - I've started to trim it down. Some of the info in those paragraphs were already in the article body, but some info was not, so I've deleted a little from the lead and added a few bits to the body. Will try to come back to this once I have the time. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

First draft for new lead: "Veganism is the personal practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products for any purpose (including food and food processing, clothing, medications, and personal care products) for ethical reasons. [Mangels 8]. The term 'vegan' is also used for those who consume a vegan diet for health reasons [Mangels 9], although this usage is disputed [Jo].

The vegan diet does not use meat, dairy, eggs, or honey. Variations of this diet include fruititarianism and raw veganism."

I didn't fill in all the ref info - Mangels refers to The Dietician's Guide to Vegetarian Diets, Jo refers to The Vegan Sourcebook.

Comments? DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks good – it's a lot better than the current lead which suffers from a number of issues. In your next draft, maybe include w-links on relevant words/terms. And I think you misspelled fruitarianism? For the ref info I think it's important to be very detailed, so please include page numbers, quotes and if possible also links to Google books or similar. TheLastNinja (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I did mispell fruitarianism. I didn't note links here but intend for them to be in the article around fruitarianism and raw veganism. Only change for next draft: replace 'although this usage is disputed' with 'although the validity of this usage is disputed'. The literal fact that the term is used with that meaning isn't disputed. My bad. I usually don't slip up like that. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

New draft with corrections as discussed, plus formatting and ref info fomatting:

"Veganism is the personal practice of eliminating the use of non-human animal products for any purpose (including food and food processing, clothing, medications, and personal care products) for ethical reasons. The term "vegan" is also used for those who consume a vegan diet for health reasons, although the validity of this usage is disputed.

The vegan diet does not use meat, dairy, eggs, or honey. Variations of this diet include fruitarianism and raw veganism."

So just insert the page numbers if you have them handy. Also not sure if I got the publication years correct. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Only major addition, specified poultry and fish in addition to 'meat', mirroring how the source reads. Still can add google book links to the two sources cited, but right now it's lunch time! I'll also move the chunks that really fit better in other sections too. DaveinMPLS (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Moved everything else out of lead. Mostly specifics. Cut the ultramathoners info - it can be restored someplace but I didn't see an obvious new home. The demographics section has contradictory statements about the # of UK vegans, which needs to be reconciled. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks decent, however I think maybe you removed a little too much. We could have a total of three paragraphs, now there are only two. Also, I think some duplication of content from the article body is allowed, as the lead should summarise the most important points of the article (as per the Manual of Style for lead sections). TheLastNinja (talk) 13:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed more than I ideally would have. The 'summary' bits were more specifics than overview. So on the positive side they integrated well when moved to the detail sections, but on the negative side there wasn't any summarization to leave put. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Paris exemption section

How does this section add to the readers understanding of 'veganism' in the slightest? It's about Francione's criticism of Singer's food choice while traveling. And takes up quite a bit of space, a photo, and audio link to do it. I'm not even sure would be relevant in the entry on Singer, but I could see an argument made for it being there. It's just an advocacy bit thrown in as yet another volley in the Utilitarian/deontology war. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC) I just noticed the caption on Singer also refers to the Paris exemption. Ludicrous. DaveinMPLS (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I don't see a good reason why it should have its own section here, or be mentioned in the caption for the picture of Singer. There is already a sentence in the "Ethical veganism" section that explains Singer's position. Maybe Francione's position could be condensed into one sentence and moved into the paragraph on Francione in the "Ethical veganism" section? TheLastNinja (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a POV dispute template to this section. Relevance and notability could also be disputed, but POV is probably the core issue. DaveinMPLS (talk) 22:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the POV template. The question is editorial, not about POV of the text (ie. whether or not the section belongs here, not that the section itself has a slanted pov). Kellen^T 22:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The paragraph is written to present an argument just to justify presenting the counterargument. Why no mention of Singer's response? (I don't even know if he made one). NPOV would give balanced presentation of both sides. As I mentioned in this talk section, there are multiple problems with the Paris exemption section. Couldn't find a template that fit any better though. I proposed moving it rather than just deleting it because someone put some effort in to it obviously, and rather than trash it probably better to move it someplace it might actually belong and deal with the unbalanced presentation there. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Vegan Fashion

Should there be a section (or a new page) on vegan fashion/shoes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.141.22 (talk) 06:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the article is lacking in that respect. I don't think the section should be called "vegan fashion". Maybe "clothes and footwear" or something like that? TheLastNinja (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

And cosmetics. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Dualism - again (aaargh) - and internal consistancy

The sentence "The philosophical debate about the moral basis of veganism reflects a division of viewpoints within animal rights theory between a rights-based or deontological approach, and a utilitarian/consequentialist one." is yet another restatement of a highly questionable dualistic model of animal ethics. Interestingly this entry itself contradicts the supposed primacy of the (mostly cosmetic IMHO) consequentialist/deontologist dichotomy! Carol Adams is notable enough to be mentioned and even pictured. Her views lie outside either of the mentioned views. I'll work up something more reflective of the breadth of the discussion. DaveinMPLS (talk) 21:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

'vegetarian', 1847 and Brotherton

http://web.archive.org/web/20080630114643/http://www.ivu.org/history/renaissance/words.html is factually incorrect about 'vegetarian', based on current information. See IVU manager and historian John Davis' blog: http://www.vegsource.com/john-davis/vegetarian-equals-vegan.html. Also, lots of history links at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegan.html. It was NOT coined at the Ramsgate conference, and Brotherton almost definately had NOTHING to do with it. You can read the pre-1847 uses of 'vegetarian' on google books, or the nice summary on IVU's site at http://www.ivu.org/history/vegetarian.html. Anyone not tired of reading yet :) can find a brief summary of vegan history at http://www.candidhominid.com/p/vegan-history.html. (note I wasn't involved in writing any of this - my own blog addresses historical vegetarian cookery specifically - cookbooks and the like). But whatever. DaveinMPLS (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The earliest printed use according to the OED was Fanny Kemble, writing in 1839. I've added a ref to Kemble, [5] and attributed it in-text to the IVU until someone can confirm that the OED does say this. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I get the problem with the first link now! An old outdated archived version of the page is being linked to. A version from 2008 is linked. The current version at http://www.ivu.org/history/renaissance/words.html has removed the Brotherton claim. Also, it would probably be a good idea to link to IVU's discussion of the Kemble claim: http://www.ivu.org/history/kemble.html. That page does confirm the OED claim. It also contains information on the validity (or lack thereof) of said claim. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

The IVU/Kemble link is already there. Second ref, note 7. [6] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Images

The new image (tofu scramble) looks revolting. The other one looks okay as a thumbnail but looking at the full image just shows it as a load of different types of tofu. Tofu's a bit of a stereotyped vegan food. It's the vegan burger picture that really needs changing IMHO.Muleattack (talk) 18:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your veggie burger with the rodent diarrhoea has finally gone. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Removing sourced material

Ninja, parts of the article seem to have been removed, particularly from the lead, which had become far too short (see WP:LEAD). Can you discuss the removals, rather than restoring them over an objection? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 23:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion of the changes to the lead over the last month and a half or so. Whereas my contribution (incidentally also fully sourced) was replaced unilaterally without discussion. I think the 'new' version should be restored and be given the benefit of community discussion. DaveinMPLS (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dave, the lead has to conform to WP:LEAD, in terms both of length and content. It is supposed to be a stand-alone piece. Your removal of material left it too short. [7]

The article had just been built up from an earlier version, so it makes no sense to wait a few weeks then decimate it again. If you want to expand it further, that's fine, but please try to leave what's there in place, unless it's mistaken in some way. And if you feel anything is mistaken (in the sense of poorly sourced or unsourced), I'd appreciate it if you could explain on talk before removing it entirely. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:01, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Whereas decimating changes made 3 weeks ago - AFTER community discussion - is sensible? Shouldn't discussion have occured in both cases? Sigh. If the lead was too short - something I had previously admitted to - an appropriate course of action would have been to ADD SUMMARY MATERIAL, not restore material excessively specific FOR A LEAD SECTION. A course of action I had suggested in talk. Anyway ... I'll point out questionable material in a bit here. DaveinMPLS (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that two single-purpose accounts want to remove a lot of material. This article has been plagued for years by people with strong views for or against veganism. What I tried to do a few months ago was expand the article, fix the writing, fix the sourcing, and make it generally conform to WP standards, and include multiple viewpoints, including disagreement within the vegan movement. I don't want to see that work wiped out by another single-purpose account with strong views. I don't intend that to be disrespectful toward you. It's just that it feels as though we're back to square one. So I'm asking you to explain here why you want to remove what you do. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 18:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Virgin, I hope the accusation about single-purpose accounts were not aimed at me. (It should be evident from my edit history that this is not true.) And even if my interests were narrower than what is the case, I'm not sure why that alone would make me less qualified to make edits. I thought everyone's contributions were equally welcome on Wikipedia, or so I have heard. Another problem with your revert is that not only did you remove the new lead that had been agreed through community discussion, but you also removed a lot of other edits from the article. Yet all you wrote in your edit summary was "restored material", neglecting to mention that what you actually did was in fact reverting to a several weeks old revision. It would seem that a better approach from you would have been to modify only the parts of the article to which you had specific objections. As it stands, I'm inclined to again revert your revert. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you and Dave are the accounts I have in mind. Dave recently started a canvassing thread on an advocacy site asking people to come and edit the article, a discussion you took part in. I was pleased to see several people there defended the article as it was.

All I can do is remind people that this page must reflect what reliable sources have published, no matter what any given editor believes. The article is not an extension of an activist board. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and the article must reflect all majority- and significant-minority published viewpoints, in rough proportion to their appearance in reliable sources.

You would not want to read an article about Penicillin that had been written only by patients who had used it. You would want to read what the relevant literature said about it. It's the same with Veganism or any other article. Our question is always: "what does the literature say?" Not "what do individual editors believe about it?" SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 19:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Slim, sorry but I'm beginning to wonder if you should read WP:OWNERSHIP.Muleattack (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Footnote 7

The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle, though they caution that poorly planned vegan diets can be deficient in vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.[7} But the cited page says "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Since there is a difference between vegetarian and vegan the sentence should be changed or removed. I'm not going to be bold because I don't know if removing entirely or amending "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard such a diet..." to "The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard planned vegetarian diets..." is better. Nitpyck (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The ADA explicitly lists veganism as a type of vegetarianism. Kellen^T 09:54, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

But conflating vegan to mean the same as vegetarian is not supported by this footnote. Nitpyck (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

You are probably looking at the abstract. The full version includes statements such as:

A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients.

where the ADA explicitly includes veganism as a type of vegetarianism in the context of their article. Kellen^T 16:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

neutrality or ideologic!

It seems to me this article is so non-neutral especially in the health section. Every where there is some report of problem with the vegan diet there is also some phrase that wants to say those vegans where not planing their diet adequately. For example I looked at the reference of one part : "Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition, and some infant fatalities, have been associated with poorly planned, restrictive vegan diets, often insufficient in calories." as I looked at the reference : at telegraph report and also at NY times there was no indication of "poorly planned" or like that in the reference! This is self made. I fix this and I hope others have time to fix other mistakes. thanx Amidelalune (talk) 10:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit you made, Amidelalune, because it seems to remove some of the nuance of those articles. In particular, both of the cases cited are self-apparently extreme cases: The NYTimes article, for example, notes that the deceased child's parents "fed him mostly soy milk and apple juice." Overlooking the horrible travesty of this event, the NYT article is an op-ed, which by definition is not subject to the same editorial standards as other reporting that appears in the times. As you noted, the Telegraph article doesn't provide any detail whatsoever about the diet the child was eating, but the other citations in the main wikipedia article, from leading health organizations and authorities, seem to agree that a "well-planned" vegan diet can be healthy. Ergo, it seems very reasonable to note that the very few outlier cases mentioned here were a result of doing something horribly wrong. The plural of "news item" is not "scientifically sound supporting data". :)66.93.60.187 (talk) 02:07, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

My name is Jimmy Snyder. Isn't it the case that if meat were not consumed, then there would less acreage under cultivation for food, not more? Animals eat grain and we eat the animals. But it is not efficient. You get more nourishment per grain by eating the grain directly. What am I missing? 173.61.117.8 (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

That's not necessarily true. There are a lot of situations where food-producing animals don't eat food suitable for human consumption. Fish don't eat grain. In many parts of the world, animals graze in areas that are unsuitable to be used for growing food. In addition, animals all over the world are being fed food that are unsuitable for human consumption (e.g. waste material from food processing, parts of corn husks, excess human food that may no longer suitable for humans). In some parts of the world, eating food that is "local" means eating meat, as opposed to eating many vegetable-based protein products means buying "imported" and "non-local" food.

In addition, you state that you get more nourishment by eating the grain directly. That's not necessarily true. If you look at the range of amino acids (building blocks of protein) that you get in meat compared to grain, then meat wins out. DivaNtrainin (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think what he meant was closer to "stuff we could grow instead of animal feed that would be used for incredibly wasteful meat production", not a comparison between the nutritional values of grain and meat specifically. --83.142.5.112 (talk) 13:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

"non-human"

The use of "non-human" in the lead is confusing. Does this imply that cannibalism is an acceptable vegan diet (obviously it's not), or is it there simply to rule-out breast milk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.129.183 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The latter. And also, donated blood, etc. Gabbe (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that it's confusing so much as questionably necessary. In some contexts 'non-human animal' may be legitimately preferable to 'animal', but I'm completely agnostic about its use here. Either way reads correctly to me. DaveinMPLS (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I've restored this, because it's only non-human animal products that are in question. No one is objecting to a woman breastfeeding, or using milk from another woman, or blood donations, etc. It's products from other species that vegan object to. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

And because "non-human" was just removed again, I'll just point out that Bree Olson considers herself a vegan and has won awards from PETA although she has almost certainly consumed human byproducts. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Bit of a controversial one but I don't think eating freely given human placenta would be considered non-vegan. Might have trouble finding sources for that though. Muleattack (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PETA says she's a vegan and they know their stuff so-oh, I've gone cross-eyed. SilverCityChristmasIsland 22:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think "non human" was most likely put there by someone wanting to remind readers that humans are animals. I think the current version of the lead, without "non human", is fine. sorsoup (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

PETA knows their stuff? I disagree with you. PETA's ad campaigns show celebrities supporting their fight against animal abuse, yet these same celebrities wear fur. It's terrible to think that PETA would consider these celebrities role models for their mission. (Celebrities such as, Heather Mills, Pamela Anderson, Charlize Theron) Brb94 (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree "non-human" does not merit inclusion in the opening sentence. It reads as if vegans say no to animal products but yes to cannibalism (if/when the need arises). A section on vegan infants/breast feeding should be included later in the article (new section?). See Vegan babies and children. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion over the next few days, I will go ahead and remove "non-human" from the introduction. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a well established term within critical animal studies as well as philosophy or science that concerns itself with questions of human-nonhuman relations. And i also don't understand what is supposed to be confusing about the term. --goiken 15:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Animal product is defined as "a term used to describe material taken from the body of a non-human animal." Why then do we need to say non-human animal product? By definition an animal product is non-human. Non-human animal product is not a well-used term. Also the few times it is used, it is to differentiate breast milk from other animal sources. The article introduction does not mention breast feeding. Nirvana2013 (talk) 15:59, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removed non-human from intro and added breastfeeding reference to Veganism#Pregnancy, babies and children. I personally have not heard anyone question whether it is against vegan ethics to receive human blood transfusions and organ transplants. Of course, xenotransplantation is a different matter. However feel free to add a reference to human transplants versus xenotransplantation, if you deem it necessary. Nirvana2013 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[Definging "animal" as "an animal organism other then a human being"] is political. Segregating humans from all other species legitimizes a human monopoly on moral and legal rights. When we say "animals and humans" we deny that we are too animals. The verbal ruse preserves the speciesist fantasy that chimpanzees, snails and tree frogs are more alike then chimpanzees and humans

— Dunayer, Joan (2001-05). Animal Equality : Language and Liberation. Ryce Publishing. ISBN 0970647557. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help).

An analogous (and quite popular) critique is also be found in Derrida, Jacques. For What Tomorrow . . .: A Dialogue (1 ed.). Stanford University Press. p. 111. ISBN 0804746273. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) To use "other animal(s)", "nonhuman animal(s)" or anything other then just "animal(s)" when speaking of "animal organism(s) other then (a) human being(s)" is a well established practice even in non-vegan modern literature on animal ethics. --goiken 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has some placed some guidelines on what it is and isn't. Wikipedia is not a place to redefine the definition of "animal product". It is not a place for inserting personal opinion or standing on a soapbox. It is a place for describing the world around us. When the average person uses the term "animal product", they are referring to non-human animal products. The fact that some individuals would like the average person to view animals differently and wishes that the english language would change, is not something that needs to be covered in a Wikipedia article. Take that personal discussion and beliefs and express that somewhere else on the web.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Criticism

Why is there no criticism section? Surely not everyone agrees being vegan is perfect, seeing as not many people are actually vegans. Point could be raised such as possible deficiencies in certain nutrients, etc. 70.78.5.3 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition is already covered, any criticisms are included throughout the article rather than in a single section.Muleattack (talk) 17:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Meltable Vegan Cheese

On November 13, Viriditas made the following comments on my talk page. I've moved the discussion to Veganism talk page so that anyone can comment

please provide an example of a cheese substitute that melts like real cheese

Lots of examples, but the most current and best known example would have to be Daiya. Now, please restore the material and remove the unsourced original research you added. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. I have seen a pizza with Daiya cheese on it as it comes out of an oven and it does not melt like real cheese. Now, I realize that antedotal evidence is not strong evidence. However, if you look at the [website] it doesn't address how it melts when compared with real cheese. In addition, the article from [Environmental Magazine] only lists the first two paragraphs unless the user subscribes to the magazine and nothing in the two paragraphs are supportive of the statement. Is this same article posted somewhere else on the web? Is there another article that addresses the same issue. Given the challenges, I am reverting the edits until more information can be found.

I would also like to remind everyone that even if we agree that Daiya cheese doesn't melt like real cheese at this point in time, it doesn't mean that with reformulation that Daiya cheese may be more meltable in the future or that another vegan cheese may come along in the future that has better melting and taste properties. DivaNtrainin (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that response is completely and totally unacceptable. We don't edit Wikipedia based on what you personally know or believe. We edit Wikipedia based on what reliable sources report and what we are able to verify. Further, your reasons for removing the material are also unsupported. I've reproduced the full information from the subscription-only source in question to meet WP:V. Lastly, I have about a dozen more sources that support this statement, and this information is easily verifiable. Again, we don't edit Wikipedia based on what you believe, and this appears to be a problem with your current edits, which have removed verifiable content and added unsourced original research in its place.[8] I am now going to add the reliable source and material back into the article with additional sources. Please do not remove it again until you have good reliable sources that dispute it. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas also tried to persuade me on my talk page, I've wiped it now but you can still view the history. There are lots of vegan cheeses that make claims about their meltability, sheese and cheezly both do 'melty' versions. What we need though is reliable third party sources that make the comparison. Likewise, there should be no mention that they DON'T melt the same without similar sources. The following link may be of use - http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/05/25/for-these-vegans-its-the-holy-grail/ Muleattack (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are confused. I haven't tried to "persuade" you of anything. I've tried, over and over again, to get you to support your edits with actual sources. The statement, "Some recent products do melt much like dairy-based cheese" is fully supported by reliable third-party sources, which is exactly what I've added. Viriditas (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't add anything, you did and it was unsourced, so I reverted it.Muleattack (talk) 20:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, you removed easily verified information and restored unsourced original research[9] That material currently remains tagged as needing citations. Since you added it back into the article, should I assume you will do the research and find sources to support it? Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is getting very boring and repetitive. If you felt that unsourced material needed removing then you could have removed it, but what you actually did is leave that material in place and add even more unsourced material. The only sentence you removed was not tagged as needing citations. The needing citations tags were added to the article by you afterwards and they were to other sentences, not the one you removed. Muleattack (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Not true. I removed the unsourced original research added by DivaNtrainin and restored the previous version.[10] You then reverted me and added the unsourced additions back in.[11] Viriditas (talk) 20:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources

• McKinnell, J. (2010, May 25). For these vegans, it's the Holy Grail. Maclean's. 123 (20), 60. ISSN 0024-9262 "Oprah tried it. Ellen talked it up. Alex Jamieson, wife of Super Size Me’s Morgan Spurlock, calls it "crack for vegans." Daiya (pronounced day-a) is a new non-dairy cheese alternative that’s causing such a sensation that one vegan blogger in L.A. described it as “the sort of stuff that’s going to start a revolution." [...}"The cheese flavour is dead-on, and even more remarkably, Daiya melts like real cheese. No joke. It melts and stretches and actually makes you want to eat it,” writes the L.A. blogger at toliveandeatinla.com."
• Mosko, Sarah S. (2011, Sept.-Oct.) "The Cheese Challenge." E/The Environmental Magazine. 22 (5), 38-39. ISSN 1046-8021. "After melting and taste-testing four top brands, the site veganbaking.net concluded that vegan cheddar and mozzarella shreds made primarily from tapioca or arrowroot flour combined with various oils from Daiya (daiyafoods.com) had both the flavor and melt-ability to stand up to their dairy counterparts."(subscription required)
• Fullbrook, Sarah. (2011, April 4). Daiya Foods Inc. BC Business. 29 (4), 78-79. ISSN 0829-481X "Available in stores across Canada and the U.S., including Whole Foods and IGA, Daiya Foods’ cheddar- and mozzarella-style "shreds" are free of animal products and many common allergens, yet, as one panellist can attest, they maintain much of the flavour and consistency of traditional cheese. Daiya Foods products can be used in cooking in a way that no other vegan cheese is used to date, says another panellist: “That’s the innovation – the taste and texture."
• Rosolen, D. (2011, May). Company Profiles: Daiya Foods Inc. Food in Canada. 71 (4), 38-42. ISSN 1188-9187. "Blake is a co-founder and CEO of Daiya Foods, a company that makes non-dairy cheeses. But what's unique about the company is that it has found a way to make dairy-free vegan cheeses that have the same properties as dairy-based cheeses -- they can shred, melt and stretch."(subscription required)

As I said previously, can this information be found in a non-subscription related website or article? Because these articles are limited to people with subscriptions, most readers can not review what was actually said, what was the background, how this information was obtained, or what the context to these statements are if they want to review the entire articles. Until this information is obtained or maybe a different source is found, I suggest we remove any statement on the meltability of vegan cheese, or at least until a consensus is obtained.DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And as I corrected you earlier, all of the relevant content from subscription-only sources has been fully reproduced where it has been used in the article and here in the talk page per WP:RS and WP:V. Your understanding of our reliable source guideline and verifiability policy is in error. Subscription-only sources are perfectly acceptable, and represent some of our highest quality sources. As a courtesy, I have reproduced the relevant material here for your perusal. Per our policies and guidelines, if and when a user requests to see this material, the editor adding the material should provide it as a courtesy. I have done just that. Viriditas (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your understanding on Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability is incorrect. Subscription-only sources are not considered the highest quality sources. I agree they are not bad or unreliable sources, but there is a negative aspect to subscription-only sources. The problem with subscription only references is that it is difficult to determine what was the background, how this information was obtained, or what the context to these statements were because only a portion of the reference is provided. If you have read Wikipedia's guidelines, they are not prescriptive instructions as to when evidence is acceptable and when it is not. In this case, another editor has called into question what the original reference actually said and it is up to the editor that originally provided the reference to provide the full article, another reference, more information, something that supports that the statement should stand. You agree that since another editor has requested more information, then the editor should provide it as a courtesy, so please provide the information you said you would provide.DivaNtrainin (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is your understanding that is the problem. Some of our highest-quality sources are subscription-based. That is a fact. I have provided the relevant material that was requested from the sources per best practices. No other editor has called any of this material into question, nor has anyone asked a single question about what this material said, and if they did, I would be happy to provide it. Your arguments against adding this material consist of "I don't like it" which is not an acceptable argument on Wikipedia. Please give me a specific reason why these sources should be questioned besides "I don't believe vegan cheese melts". Please actually address the problem you see with the sources with specific objections related to your own research on this subject, supported by actual sources. In other words, in your reply to this comment, I expect to see actionable questions that I can address or answer. Please do not respond with another litany of comments that say "I don't like it because I don't like it because I don't like it." Please address the topic. Viriditas (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the whole part about the meltability of vegan cheeses should go. The newly added statement relies on the totally unsourced statement about vegan cheeses not melting to make sense. Instead it should just be mentioned that there are vegan 'cheeses'. The meltability of vegan cheese isn't exactly of great importance to the article anyway. Reference to the meltability of vegan cheeses should go in the Cheese_analogue page. Muleattack (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

While there is always room for improvement and expansion, the sources on this subject are at odds with your beliefs. If you had performed the research I asked you to do, you would discover that the meltability of vegan cheese substitutes was considered one of the great unsolved problems of vegan cooking. This is not unsourced as you claim, but easily verified in the literature and presumably, in the sources currently used. This is the second time now that you have made claims based on your personal beliefs rather than on the sources. Please stop doing this. Viriditas (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uhm... Correct me if I'm wrong but you're the person that added the citation needed to the claim that vegan cheeses don't melt the same as dairy cheeses. I don't remember you asking me to do any research but I'm not disputing that vegan cheeses can melt in the same way as non vegan. Try reading what I wrote again. I'm merely suggesting that the meltability of vegan cheeses is more suited to the article Cheese_analogue. There's no mention of the differences between vegan meat substitutes/milk and regular meat/animal milk so it seems undue weight to go in to depth about how cheese melts in particular.Muleattack (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That citation tag should have been removed. I just explained why the meltability issue is considered important to vegan cuisine, and as the sources impart this significance, there is nothing undue about it. I am unaware of any similar significant issue in terms of meat and milk analogues, which is why they are not mentioned. And for the record, I am not the original author of this material. I am an editor who wants to see this topic covered accurately and without bias. The sources are quite clear on this subject, but since you don't see the importance, I will make it explicit in the next series of edits. Viriditas (talk) 23:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead image

I'm not sure who replaced the old lead image with the current image, but I cannot envision a more horrible choice. First of all, the "tofu scramble" is universally hated by many vegetarians/vegans and omnivores. It does not represent the best veganism has to offer, nor does it appear to be a good photograph, with at least a considerable portion of the left side of the image in shadow, probably due to the hand of the photographer blocking the light. Considering the incredible number of great photographs of vegan cuisine available on commons, this choice is by far, one of the worst I've ever seen. I intend to replace it ASAP. Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added three additional images as a compromise, and preserved the tofu scramble. Feel free to add or replace any of these images with the best vegan images you can find. Viriditas (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks really nice now. Well done! TheLastNinja (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

potential resource

Sculptured by Weights and a Strict Vegan Diet by MATTHEW L. WALD published NYT. A version of this article appeared in print on January 5, 2012, on page B10 of the New York edition with the headline: Sculptured By Weights And a Strict Vegan Diet. 99.190.80.182 (talk) 06:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

History of veganism

I have just created History of veganism as a stub. Feel free to contribute. Nirvana2013 (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Veganism Growing

Currently the introduction says Veganism is growing, but doesn't back this up correctly. The statement is followed by figures giving the current number of Vegans in the UK & USA but no stats showing if this has changed. Has anyone got any figures to back it up? Strange ideas (talk) 09:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Might as well just remove it, even with figures it's still OR. You could say that it's growing in that it has gained the number of vegans there are now since the inception of the word - doesn't mean much though. Muleattack (talk) 11:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I've added a source -- Rynn Berry's entry on "Veganism" in The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 604–605. He calls it a "burgeoning movement," and he gives lots of examples, ending with the view that it is heading for the mainstream. This is not a contentious claim. Anyone watching television, going into a supermarket or restaurant, or looking through modern restaurant guides for big cities, and increasingly for small ones, can see that it's a growing trend. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 21:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The way I see it, and this is just my own view spanning many decades and a personal interest in food and culinary history, is that while there is certainly a trend at work, what we are really seeing is the social and commercial acceptance of consumer choice made possible by the introduction and distribution of a wider product and marketing base. This would be like going to the store in the 1940s for soda pop, and finding just a few products available, compared to today, where the smallest store carries at least 20 different varieties, even if they are only made by two or three companies. So the trend is towards consumer choice, which paves the way for acceptance. This means it is OK to ask for vegetarian or vegan items, even if one eats meat. Unfortunately, there are still many companies who are fighting this kind of choice. For example, the Panda Express Chinese restaurant chain will not advertise or market vegetarian/vegan menu items, for whatever reason. But companies like Burger King will, and allow meat eaters and vegetarians to eat together. McDonald's still refuses to carry veggie burgers, however, and I've talked with major executives who tell me their test markets failed, and they make all kinds of lame excuses, but it's more of an institutional refusal to allow consumers to choose, and McDonald's has responded to more serious criticism by changing their menu to offer more healthy choices, but they've got a long way to go. Viriditas (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: the more I think about this, the more I'm convinced that vegans and vegan organizations have missed an opportunity to change the food industry from the bottom level up. Instead, they focus on abstract issues like animal rights and cruelty, instead of simply eliminating the problem by mobilizing the vegan demographic to lobby food companies for vegan food choices, which would necessitate the production of less animal products and meet the goals of their agenda. The best thing vegan groups can do is hire a lobbyist from the animal and meat industry so that they can employ the same strategies to replace animal products with their own. Viriditas (talk) 03:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is starting to happen, now that veganism is viewed as a human health issue, rather than an animal rights one. The result is that big companies are starting to realize there is money to be made from vegan products, so they will inevitably start to be marketed better. It's a shame that money and self-interest will achieve what ethics failed to (at least on its own), but that's nothing new. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 03:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you communicate the animal rights position to, let's say, the people involved in the illegal, underground cockfighting community in Hawaii, largely run by Filipino immigrants? I've honestly tried, and they patiently explain that these ideas have no resonance for them. I can't speak for all Filipino people of course, but I am speaking about the ones involved in illegal blood sports. The law is way too weak, and once they get arrested, they get bailed out in a matter of hours to days by the leader of the group. In all honesty, I asked one of them, how can it be stopped, and he looked at me like I had three heads, and he said "it can't, it's part of our culture". This is no different than going to Springfield, Missouri and yelling "You don't have to eat meat! I've got enough gazpacho for everyone." How do you communicate animal rights across cultural barriers? How do you promote an ethics that is so foreign, it could very well be viewed as extraterrestrial? As an ethical duty, vegans should attend law school and run for political office, because I don't see any other solution at this time. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should mind your own damn business and stop trying to jam your arrogant ethnocentric views down their throats? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.176.205 (talk) 03:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Gary Francione, a law professor and animal rights advocate, tells a story in Animals, Property, and the Law (pp. xiii–xv). There is a pigeon shoot every year in Hegins, near Harrisburg, PA; has been for 60 years. People have a breakfast at 6 am, and from 9 am, thousands of pigeons in boxes are given electric shocks, or propelled out of the box by a stick, fly upwards, and are shot by people who have paid $80 each. The pigeons are kept in a dehydrated and emaciated state for days beforehand, and are too weak to fly more than a few feet. Trapper boys are employed to gather up the injured birds. The boys rip the birds' heads off, or smash them against a wall, or sometimes just throw them into a barrel with the dead birds, where they suffocate. If there are animal rights protesters there, the boys play to the crowd by smashing the injured pigeons together, or swinging them round in circles. But it is the protesters who end up being arrested.

He writes that every year protesters set up veterinary clinics to help the injured birds, and are routinely harassed by locals, but it is the locals the state troopers defend. He recounts a conversation he had with a local:

• "How long have you participated in these pigeon shoots?"

• "Since when I was a kid."

• "Don't you think it's cruel to the pigeons?"

• "Look, you're from the city. You don't understand. ... It's a tradition. We've been doing it for 60 years."

A crowd gathered to listen to the exchange. A trooper warned Francione that, if he continued with the conversation, he would be charged with disorderly conduct.

But here's the thing. Although we might feel that these people (and your cockfighters) are particularly cruel, most ordinary people take part in similar cruelty every day, just one step removed, by paying for the eight billion animals that are slaughtered each year (in the United States alone) for food; and who are kept in horrendous conditions beforehand. And they are kept in those conditions, not so that we can have meat and cheese, but so we can have them at absurdly low prices.

The lesson is that human self-interest knows no shame. So to make advances, that self-interest has to be appealed to. You would have to persuade the cockfighters that it was bad for them – that handling the birds might make them ill, that doing such a stupid and cruel thing will make them unattractive to women, etc. Appealing to ethics does work as part of the overall meme that "hurting animals is bad", but it takes a long time for the shame factor to kick in, and it needs self-interest to propel it. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 05:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think SlimVirgin has solved the unsourced issue, hate to be a meanie but can the discussion stay on topic (about improving the article).Muleattack (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely off topic from the initial thread, but I think there is useful information here that can be used to expand the article. For example, I don't see any of the main points in the ethical veganism section (3.3.2) represented in the lead, and the second paragraph focuses too much on 1.1.3, so perhaps we can talk about rewriting the lead to give a more balanced overview based on some of the things that have been discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What kinds of points did you have in mind to add to the lead, Viriditas? Muleattack, sorry for rambling on; I was enjoying the exchange. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 00:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a lot to say, so let me start small: currently, we have three paragraphs (four if you count the third as two due to length). We're told about the types of vegans in the first paragraph, but actually, the second paragraph that defines it should be here instead, and the first should be moved to the second. I'm not convinced of any strict demarcation between ethical, dietary, and environmental vegans, and I suspect that most vegans are a combination of ethical and environmental, with very few composing the dietary type. It's far too simplistic to split them up with fine lines between them, and it would make more sense to present them as a continuum in a second paragraph with leading proponents and their arguments (paraphrased). If you put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't know anything about this topic, this would be the ideal way to teach someone about it. As it reads now, it makes it seem like you're either an ethical, dietary, or environmental vegan, which isn't right at all. Viriditas (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The ethical/dietary distinction is a pretty standard one (sources); not so sure about "environmental veganism," though it has a source. Do you have suggestions for how to word the second paragraph so the lines are more blurred? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but those sources support what I've been saying and the current lead doesn't really work. As the most recent sources show, most vegans practice ethical veganism. It is very misleading to present ethical veganism as equivalent in practice to dietary and environmental veganism, which represent a very small minority. It also doesn't belong in the first paragraph, and should be switched with the second, as the second paragraph defines it before classifying the different types. Please remember "beginner's mind", and try reading the article as if you didn't know anything about it. Someone who comes to this topic will want to read the second paragraph defining the concept first, and the first paragraph discussing the primary type (ethical) second. This is pretty obvious to me, as one would have to understand the definition before understanding the types. Not sure why I'm having trouble communicating this problem, but I'm pretty much done here. Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Growing again

This constant attempt to remove that veganism is growing as a movement is a little disturbing, when it's so obviously true. Anyone can do a Google News search and see the number of very recent articles that report growing interest from physicians, growing interest from restaurants and customers, and from people with certain chronic diseases. If anyone wants to remove this again, could you explain your reasoning on talk first, please? SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think there's consensus to keep the "veganism is growing" point in the lead and in the article, but I would like to see additional sources (including current ones) per the objection of the editor who removed it. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Done. [12] SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 01:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

GHG Data of Eshel and Martin

The Wikipedia article uncritically presents an invalid conclusion based on erroneous data and flawed analysis, from the study at University of Chigago by Eshel and Martin (2006. Earth Interactions 10, Paper No. 9). Their calculations used figures on fossil fuel energy use in beef, pork, chicken and lamb production, expressed per unit protein energy production, from Table 8.2 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996. Food, Energy and Society). That table indicates that the data source is Pimentel et al. (1980. Science 207: 843-848). However, in the latter paper, output was expressed on a protein mass basis, and conversion to a protein energy basis by Pimentel and Pimentel (1996) involved calculation error resulting in extremely inflated ratios of fossil energy to meat protein energy in their Table 8.2. The overestimation for beef, pork and chicken is by a factor of about 1.7 if intended to be on a metabolizable energy basis or about 2.2 on a gross energy basis. [Writers of the Wikipedia entry can confirm this by checking the 1996 book and the 1980 paper and consulting Merrill and Watt (USDA Handbook No. 74) for data on metabolizable and gross energy contents of meat protein. The Merrill and Watt publication is a widely accepted source, being approved, for example, by US FDA regulations (CFR 21, sec. 101.9) as a source of energy data for certain food labeling.] The "fossil fuel energy" input figure per unit lamb protein energy production used by Eshel and Martin presents a different issue. This figure vastly overestimates a realistic magnitude and bears no apparent relation to the 1980 data, despite the Pimentels' citation of the latter as the source. In the text of Chapter 8 of Pimentel and Pimentel (1996), this same figure exactly is the feed energy input per unit lamb protein energy output calculated for a range sheep production system. As such, virtually all of it represents photosynthetically captured solar energy. Its inclusion as a fossil energy figure in the Pimentels' Table 8.2 was evidently an error. For all kinds of meat production examined, Eshel and Martin failed to partition alleged livestock production energy input between food and non-food products. Substitutes for the non-food products of livestock would require energy use and involve greenhouse gas emissions, which must be taken into account if estimation of net energy savings and greenhouse gas emission reductions associated with reduced livestock production are to be credible. If one knows how the substitution will be done, the preferred alternative is to do a calculation accounting for the energy used in substitution. If one does not know how the substitution will be done, a credible alternative is using energy partitioning between food and non-food products. With partitioning of energy input among food and non-food products on a product mass basis, Eshel and Martin's energy use figure for beef meat, for example, is found to be inflated by a factor of at least 3.5, relative to the original 1980 data. Analogous partitioning for sheep production energy indicates that their fossil energy input figure assigned to lamb meat is inflated by a factor of approximately 21, relative to a credible figure. The extreme overestimates of fossil fuel energy use assigned to beef, pork, chicken and lamb meat production by Eshel and Martin were used by them in calculating carbon dioxide emissions that they assigned to meat production. There are also other errors and omissions in their analysis, affecting results. The cited GHG results from that paper cannot be presented responsibly without calling attention to important errors that invalidate those results. Note the Wikipedia verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

GHG Percentage Attributed to Livestock by Goodland and Anhang

The Wikipedia entry uncritically presents the erroneous percentage of GHGs attributed to livestock by Goodland and Anhang. Goodland and Anhang's figure includes carbon dioxide emission from respiration by livestock. The plant biomass C amount emitted as carbon dioxide and methane from livestock would tend to be emitted as carbon dioxide and methane (but in different proportions) by other herbivores and decomposers metabolizing the biomass in the absence of livestock. In their tally, Goodland and Anhang neglect the reduction of carbon dioxide emission from non-livestock biota that thus occurs due to livestock production. This omission would be unexceptionable if they were tallying gross emissions. However, they do not tally gross emissions, omitting (for example) carbon dioxide emission by respiration from crop plants in their total, and including, as "emissions" attributed to livestock, net photosynthetic offsets foregone due to livestock-raising. They also use a large multiplier for livestock methane and a small multiplier for other methane (for conversion to carbon dioxide equivalents). In summary, they distort methane data and arbitrarily include some source and sink terms while omitting others, to inflate the percentage of emissions that they claim is attributable to livestock. As a result, their emission percentage estimate is meaningless, and uncritically citing this exceptional claim is inappropriate. Note the Wikipedia verifiability precept that "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Schafhirt (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Low birth weights

Current text - "A maternal vegan diet has been associated with low birth weight,[61]"

This implies an unhealthy child with a low birth weight is a risk of veganism. The actual reference however states "Lower birth weights have also been reported in white communities consuming macrobiotic diets and in white vegans". Lower birth weight is not the same as Low birth weight. In this case I don't think just changing it to 'lower' would be good enough as the word associated still implies it as a negative when there's no evidence of that.Muleattack (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is not well expressed, and should probably be removed. The paper says: [13]

The duration of pregnancy is approximately 4–5 d shorter in Hindu vegetarians, and earlier onset of labour and Caesarian section are more common than in the white population in the UK even after correction for gestational age, sex of infant, parity, smoking habits, maternal age and height (McFadyen et al. 1984 ; Reddy et al. 1994). Lower birth weights have also been reported in white communities consuming macrobiotic diets and in white vegans (Sanders, 1995). It is possible that the lower birth weight in these women is related to poor nutritional status with regard to Fe or folate and/or vitamin B12. However, birth weights are similar in vegetarians compared with omnivores in the UK (R Drake, personal communication).

SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 06:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Tofu Scramble Picture

Needs to go. Awful picture. It's not even tofu scramble as described, it's clearly tofu stir fry. Muleattack (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the picture looks too bad, although I think you're right it's not actually tofu scramble. It also looks a bit messy compared to the other pictures. Have you got something better? Maybe something which is in fact tofu scramble? TheLastNinja (talk) 08:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The cupcake picture also depicts very badly made frosting (wherein the sugars appear to have been disolved with some fluid and therefore are not integrated with the fats). Perhaps we can also replace this one? Kellen^T 12:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Poorly planned

It's certainly true that any poorly planned diet can be dangerous, so I've always wondered why vegan diets were being singled out. We only have to look at obesity and diabetes stats to see what poorly planned non-vegan diets do. What is the objection exactly from those who are reverting? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, thanks, I am happy with your recent reversion. I think I was trying too hard to defend veganism against the view that special planning was needed. I wanted to point out that other diets can be harmful in other ways which veganism is not. But the paragraph contains this info anyway. cheers TonyClarke (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Although I'm not the only one who has reverted this addition, and the edit summaries have explained the reasons, yet, without any policy-based reasoning it's been restored. Why? It's editorial special pleading (editorializing not found in the original source, IOW original research). It's not the place for editors who believe in veganism to add their own defense of the practice. It's simply a violation of several of our policies.

I grew up in a vegetarian home and lived as a vegan for several decades, so I know all about it and have many sympathies for it. One becomes an expert on diet and nutrition, which combined well with my medical training. The concerns mentioned in the source (about certain nutrients) are still legitimate and should not be watered down by editorial OR additions. One does need to be more careful on a vegan diet. Speaking to the point of the source, certain nutrients can be missed, while other diets always contain those nutrients and are thus more forgiving toward carelessness because they include so many other nutrients in what amounts to be a sort of "insurance" coverage which protects. One is unlikely to not get the nutrients one might miss on a carelessly planned vegan diet. The addition of an editor's opinion neutralizes the point the source is trying to make. The rest then makes no sense.

Tony is absolutely correct that "other diets can be harmful in other ways", but "other ways" is not the point of the source. Certain nutrients often missing from carelessly planned vegan diets IS the point. Of course the typical American diet, and many other diets using meat and junk food, can certainly cause all kinds of health problems, obesity, etc.., but this article is about veganism, not about attacking the typical American diet, as terrible as it is, and we need to follow the source and not water down the point it's trying to make.

Right now we've got some pretty obvious policy violations. Why not just allow vegans to add their opinions everywhere in the article? No, we don't allow that, and not in this situation either. Can we (vegans or not) find extremely reliable sources that prove above all doubt that a carelessly planned typical American diet causes serious health problems? Certainly!! But that's not the job of this article. That would be off-topic. We have plenty of other articles here which do that very well. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We could get rid of the words that are causing the disconnect, and say:

The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard a well-planned vegan diet as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle. Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease, though vegans are advised to make sure they have adequate sources of vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:06, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with this proposed text. I agree with BullRangifer's concerns; my other objection to the "like other diets" addition was that it broke the flow of the paragraph, which ends by listing nutrients that vegans need to pay specific attention to. For example, dietary B12 deficiency is virtually unheard of among non-vegans. We do our readers a disservice by conflating the drawbacks of different diets. Skinwalker (talk) 16:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm also fine with the proposed text, as it addresses the real concern without implying that deficiencies are unique to vegan diets. BTW, even B12 deficiency isn't at all uncommon in non-vegans. In the Framingham study, about 1 in 6 meat eaters were B12 deficient. Behaviordoc (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that may have been due to disease-related malabsorption - e.g. anemia rather than dietary deficiency, but I won't press the point. In any case - vegans are at greater risk of B12 deficiency than non-vegans, and vegans diets can be fine for people if they supplement B12 and a few other nutrients. This text covers that nuance without grammatically conflating separate issues of acute nutrient deficiency vs. chronic dietary-induced diseases like diabetes, atherosclerosis, etc. Skinwalker (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We seem to have agreement, and I think it deals with Tony's concern, so I've gone ahead and added it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

10 Edits in one day!, good outcome Thanks all and SlimVirgin for bringing it together TonyClarke (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegan Vs. Vegetarian

"...dietary vegans (or strict vegetarians)..." < That is incorrect, I am removing it. Vegetarians eat animal products, but do not eat meat. A vegan who llows others to have non-vegan diets is a vegan, not a vegetarian. The term "vegan" has explicitly to do with your diet, and nothing to do with Animal Rights activism. In fact, most Animal Rights activists are guaranteed not to be vegans, most are likely not even vegetarian. Whoever wrote this article is offensive! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.251.138 (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Joanne Stepaniak, author of Being Vegan (2000), argues that to place the qualifier "dietary" before "vegan" dilutes its meaning—like using the term "secular Catholic" for people who want to practise only some aspects of Catholicism.[66] She writes that people should not call themselves vegan simply because they have embraced the diet: "Practising a vegan diet no more qualifies someone as vegan than eating kosher food qualifies someone as Jewish."[67]" < That is also highly offensive, so was also removed. You are not allowed to insult people like this! It is clearly stated in wikipedia rules to keep articles free of bias! And, this bias is utterly inapproprate, and literally insane! If you personally feel this way about this group of people, fine, but keep that feeling off of wikipedia articles! And, for the record, it's wrong. Vegan only means dietary veganism to begin with. Cultist types cannot hijack a practice of foriegners and attach looney tune crud to it like this. For starters, if you are frothing-at-the-mouth hating dietary vegans, you have 100% failed the ethical veganism path personally, because a human being is not considered lower on the totem pole than a cow (except in Hinduism, but Hinduism is not one of the Vegan religion, Buddhism and Jainism are, and they don't feel that way about cows)!

Crop Death section

Humorously enough this section constitutes an unethical use of single side argumentative citations plus omissions of logic. The simple conclusion of one side is subjected to unopposed persuasive arguments and conclusion of the other. If that was not enough very large omissions in logic and the topic of ethics are made in order to present a very emotional false dilemma. A very key omission is that deaths cannot be classified as purely or even mostly accidental IF you know there is a high probability or yield of death by any process. In human courts this would at least be placed in the venue of negligent homicide and voluntary manslaughter. But more likely it would be treated as terroristic mass murder like driving a car into crowd. That is recent ethics have recognized that lack of intention to kill specific individuals or even a specific number of individual does not make the event an accident. By rough definition an accident has to be an unexpected event; all else is at best negligence.

The Vegan attempt to invalidate figures via the "you didn't use OUR units of measure" is very basic one were you start by proposing without proof that only one measure of measure is valid and you are the only one who knows how to do math. The specific move to per capita or people based figures is one of the oldest bit of chicanery in the books -- in voting they call it gerrymandering. But basically any time an argument can be moved to people counts, a skilled opponent can exclude huge fractions of people by choosing data sources that only count the people they want counted and ignore others -- or sometimes create false differences to allow double counting the same favorite people. Part of this is because accounting for all the people a slice at a time is difficult to track. But also because most surveys are either poorly done (even with the right degree not everyone was an A student or flexible with results based on financial inducements) or used without the context explaining who was included and who might not be. There are all sorts of ways to bias the answers by the way you ask questions "when did you stop torturing animals for your pleasure and financial gain?".

Nor can you invalidate an argument by simple observation that its numbers are not very precise -- you can only suspend any comparative conclusions as final pending more study (conclusions are still potentially correct). Thus the land use argument has its own problems but its unlikely that land are used by US farming for crops will decrease - even if the ratio of domestic versus foreign use changes. The biggest unaddressed issue about land use is that some poor land (rocky, arid, steep, etc) can be easily be grazed by animals to some degree but is not suitable for any popular mass production food crops -- yet some harvestable crop exists (grapes for semi-rocky hillside) or can be developed. Obviously crop growing kills differ by crop and by harvesting methods and pest control measures as well as planting other maintenance operations. However, wheat and corn and soybeans kill rates are probably close enough for a first stab at numbers...if you want precise numbers then more study is needed.

I would rate the Vegan sources cited as actually having fairly poor scores in logic and ethics (logic being the foundation of ethics). Properly speaking emotional means of persuasion belong to MORAL issues and morals form the foundations for some sort of emotion driven religious-cultural value system. While such system can theoretically also have ethical foundations, the heavy use of intentional deception and logic traps within arguments tends to point toward unethical victory at any cost standards.

Now in all fairness I would like to point out that field mice deaths and those of most higher animals can easily be greatly reduced by several means: One of means being ultrasonic broadcasts well ahead of machinery to drive them out of the way. So really the question of comparison is a very good one which remains wide open. Neither side as done enough research to make reasonable conclusions about numbers for either solution.72.182.15.249 (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Vegans are advised

This has been removed and restored a couple of times recently. I share the concerns of the editors who are removing it:

..."vegans are advised to make sure they have adequate sources of vitamin B12, iron, vitamin D, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids."

Sources: [14]

Looking at the sources, there's no consensus on this issue (except for B12), and the way the sentence summarizes the source material is a little misleading. Also, the sources are not up to date given how much has changed about attitudes to vegan nutrition in recent years, and in some cases the sources aren't scientists or experts in nutrition.

I would therefore prefer to remove it until we find reliable sources that say clearly that vegans in particular need to do X or Y, because it's giving the impression that there is something problematic about a vegan diet, and it risks encouraging readers to take unnecessary (or even harmful) supplements. I'm thinking in particular that it's not a good idea to encourage readers in the lead – where we can't explain the issues in detail – to take iron, calcium or iodine. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations for this were a part of the article until you did a major revision of it (a year ago?) and removed the bulk of the references. See, e.g., this revision. Kellen^T 16:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think some of the nutritional references were redistributed in other places during the revisions, but some are no longer present. As for the present issue, the current source for the vitamin D claim does not support the claim that it is a cause for concern. I would be fine with removing vitamin D until a less equivocal reference is found. However, I favor maintaining the majority of the list in the lede. It is reasonably well-sourced and fairly summarizes a major part of the article. Proper planning is a crucial part of any diet, and we do a disservice to our readers if we do not educate them about how to do it properly. Eventually I would like to see WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for all health claims - positive and negative - in this article, but that's a separate and larger discussion. Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I retained all the better secondary sources, and even retained some primary ones. But what we need are the best and most recent secondary sources/review articles we can find. The problem with using primary sources is that for every study that says X, we could find one that says not-X. If a study has become well-known we can mention it, but relying on unknown/non-notable primary sources becomes a form of original research.

As things stand, the secondary sources disagree, and/or are years out of date. So my feeling is that we shouldn't elaborate at all in the lead, except to point out the need to take B12. Then in the subsections devoted to those issues, we should carefully attribute each view in the text.

Also, I think in some cases we are misreading the source material. When we find a paper on vegan nutrition that says "vegans should make sure they eat X and Y," we interpret that to mean "vegans, as opposed to non-vegans, may have an X or Y deficiency." But the sources don't always mean it that way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I heartily agree with the need to find good secondary sources and review articles. For the specific issues of iron, calcium, iodine, and omega-3 fatty acids - what are the sources that disagree, and which ones are out of date? The Vegan Outreach references each cite solid sources that we should consider including. Skinwalker (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The Vegan Outreach pages are very informative, but we don't always stick to what they say, and it's not always clear what their sources are (sometimes it is clear; and sometimes the sources are very old; and sometimes their material is anecdotal).

But for now, I think we do need to rewrite that sentence in the lead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:48, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a 2009 paper here about vegan nutrition. Using that, we could write the following in the lead, which I have taken from the start of his third section. Then we could give more detail about supplements in the relevant subsections, where we can provide context:

Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease. They tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12.

I haven't been able to find any recent review articles on vegan nutrition. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything more recent than the Craig review either, but it is a good source. Your suggested text is a good starting point for discussion, however I'd like to get comments from other regular editors here before implementing it. I'm concerned that we are still conflating chronic diseases - heart problems - with acute nutritional deficiencies. The second sentence does not completely follow from the first. Plant-based diets help protect against heart disease largely via reduced fat and cholesterol, not through altering the other nutrients listed. Also, isn't iron one of the nutrients that is typically deficient in vegan diets? Our sources seem to disagree on this. Skinwalker (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sources are inconsistent about iron; in fact, I think Craig is internally inconsistent about it, though I may be misremembering and will have to read it again. But inconsistency across sources is very common, not only regarding iron. They agree only on B12, but disagree significantly about the amounts needed. The truth is that there is very little very good research on the effects of a vegan diet. The research that does exist is out of date and flawed in various ways (not least by regularly conflating veganism and vegetarianism, even though they are different in kind). Hence my hesitation to recommend supplements in Wikipedia's voice.

On your other point, I agree that the second sentence doesn't follow entirely from the first. We can attribute those sentences to different sources to make the separation clearer. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think one important point is that degenerative diseases come (partly) from an unhealthful lifestyle deficient in nutrients found in a wide range of plant foods. Therefore it is not simply that veganism provides protection, but vulnerability comes from the narrow range of food sources (some harmful) in non-vegan diets. Probably best not to put it in such stark terms, but how about something like: 'People following vegan diets suffer less degenerative diseases such as heart disease, according to some sources<refs, Craig study>: other research points out the need for vegans to ensure they have a wide enough range of food sources, (possibly fortified?) to have sufficient intake of certain nutrients such as B12, iodine and Omega-3 fatty acids<refs>. Most sources seem to think that Calcium and Iron are well supplied through a varied intake of greens , etc.. I think it is incontestable that B12 at least needs to be taken in fortified form.

TonyClarke (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

This statement is inappropriate as all humans are advised to make sure they have adequate sources for these nutrients. The statement gives the impression that those who do not adhere to a vegan diet need not be concerned about whether or not their diet includes proper levels of these nutrients. The only one of these nutrients worth mentioning in this article is vitamin B-12 as this vitamin is produced by bacteria which means that it is highly unlikely that recommended levels of this vitamin will be consumed on a diet that consists only of plant foods produced using modern plant agriculture processes, and a B-12 supplement is therefore almost always needed. --67.220.217.115 (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Vegans and non-vegans who need iron supplements (and the rest) should take them, and those who don't shouldn't, and that's all we can say about it in Wikipedia's voice. The only issue people agree on for vegans is B12.

I'd like to go ahead and add this instead of the current sentences in the lead:

Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease. They tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. Because no plant food contains a significant amount of B12, researchers agree that vegans should eat foods fortified with B12 or take a daily supplement.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:36, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

As we've discussed, the sources disagree on iron, so I suggest removing it from the lede entirely. The problem with iron is probably due to bioavailability, which is too complicated to go into in the lede. Otherwise I can support this. Skinwalker (talk) 17:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I think we should include iron because the source does; to choose that one to leave out is OR. The subsection we have on iron deals with it poorly too (see here); the source we use there agrees that vegan and vegetarian diets are higher in iron than non-vegetarian, and vegan diets higher than vegetarian. (See Mangels, Reed; Messina, Virginia; and Messina, Mark. The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2010, first published 2004, p. 138ff). Bioavailability might be an issue, but it might not; we can address those complexities in that subsection.

The point is that these sentences and subsections have been written to give the impression that there are particular deficiencies with a vegan diet, but when you read the sources, that's either not what they say, or if they do they're more nuanced and/or out of date. So I think we should be guided by Craig's recent peer-reviewed overview, not least because he focuses on veganism, not vegetarianism. Viewing veganism as nothing but a subset of vegetarianism is a key mistake a lot of the sources made in the past (and that seems to have led to mistakes about the amount and bioavailability of iron in vegan diets, for example). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't have easy access to Mangels et al. Could you quote a relevant passage? Do they cite a secondary source for their claims about iron? Skinwalker (talk) 17:58, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit too long and complicated to summarize, but I was able to read some of it on Google, so if you go there and search for iron starting at p. 138, you should be able to see a few pages. They do cite the primary sources (the book itself is a secondary source). A couple of key passages:

(p. 143): "Concern over the iron status of vegetarians is based not on the iron content of vegetarian diets, but rather on the poor bioavailability of iron from plant foods. Vegetarian and plant-based diets generally contain as much or more iron than animal-based diets (Appendix H). Vegan diets are generally higher in iron than lacto-ovo vegetarian diets because dairy foods contain relatively little iron."

(p. 144): "Plant-based diets tend to be high in iron ... Dutch researchers designed typical vegan, lacto-vegetarian, and nonvegetarian diets and found them to contain 20.4, 17.4, and 13.6 mg of iron per day, respectively." This was consistent with data from China, India, and the United States.

The authors seem to suggest that the bioavailability issue may not a problem and/or that the body adapts to increase bioavailability over time (if I have understood it correctly after a quick reading of it). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:08, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've added the new sentences to the lead, and I've removed the recommendations about supplements, except for B12. I've also started working on the vitamins/minerals subsections to make sure the text matches the sources, and that the sources are appropriate. The end of the lead now reads:

The American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada regard a well-planned vegan diet as appropriate for all stages of the life-cycle. Well-planned vegan diets have been found to offer protection against many degenerative conditions, including heart disease. They tend to be higher in dietary fibre, magnesium, folic acid, vitamin C, vitamin E, iron, and phytochemicals, and lower in calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin D, calcium, zinc, and vitamin B12. Because plant foods tend not to contain significant amounts of B12, researchers agree that vegans should eat foods fortified with B12 or take a daily supplement.

I found this paper from Japan that suggests B12 can be found in sufficient quantities in nori, but it's a primary source so I didn't add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Religious veganism

I attempted to add a section on religious veganism as observed in certain religions, particularly during the Lenten fasting periods of Oriental Orthodoxy. I've scoured the articles on the subject of Oriental Orthodox fasting for sources, but it appears that most of these are derived from Oriental Orthodox practitioners' experiences rather than any written source; I suspect that this is because these churches are based in the Middle East and Ethiopia, and as such little English-language materials are available on the subject. I would urge others to find more concrete sources in (e.g.) academic and historical sources on these churches; I myself will seek information online in Arabic. However, I would like to ask for some leniency in the matter, for the simple reason that hard research is harder to come by than the common knowledge of English-speaking practicing Coptic and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. Lockesdonkey (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I see Muleattack removed it here as OR. Personally I have no problem with it remaining until you find sources (so long as it doesn't take too long), but I would understand if someone objected that this isn't really veganism. Deciding "I'm not going to eat animal products this week, but I will next," doesn't involve excluding animal use completely from your diet or your life, so I can see Muleattack's point about it being OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See Partial fasting and temporary abstinence on the Christian vegetarianism article and Fasting and abstinence of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. Nirvana2013 (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

The sentiment in part of the text was that there probably aren't any religions with vegan ideals but Jainism and Hare Krishnaism do and there is cause for debate about wether Christianity did at the time of Jesus Christ for instance. I don't know if fasting for a day qualifies as veganism if it takes place in a queue for a burger bar, which may or not be synonymous with the Christian Orthodoxy ritual. Perhaps a bit more explaination would make it appear more relevant. There is a recent non-religious campaign to get people to try veganism one day a week so they could say they know what it is like and consider trying it then. Maybe the relationship to the Othodoxy Church ritual is the same but it didn't say that. Is the point abuot fasting or is it about veganism? ~ R.T.G 11:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Varieties of veganism

I've noticed that this sentence, in the first paragraph, doesn't seem to make sense to me: "Environmental veganism, rejects the use of animal products on the premise that the industrial practice is environmentally damaging and unsustainable." Aside from the fact that only people can accept or reject things, and philosophies cannot, the sentence does not communicate what "industrial practice" is environmentally damaging and unsustainable." It says the industrial practice is damaging. There is more than one industrial practice in existence. Which one is damaging? What is an "industrial practice" anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your personal POV asserting that dietary vegans are not vegans. That is an opinion! One which goes against many WP:Reliable sources, including the WP:Bundled sources placed right beside the introductory paragraph. Did you not see the note at the top of the article when editing...which states "Please do not add your personal opinions to this article, or remove material because you personally disagree with it."? Dietary vegans are vegans to many people because they follow the vegan diet. And all vegans are often considered strict vegetarians anyway (very strict vegetarians) because veganism is indeed an aspect of vegetarianism, by definition, as many reliable sources obviously show. The view that one has to follow more than just the diet to be vegan is an opinion; nothing more. That is why it is debated, a debate already noted in the Dietary veganism section. You took the side of "Oh, they aren't true vegans" and placed it in the lead as fact, which violates WP:NPOV. Wikipedia isn't supposed to work that way. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 09:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It is not an opinion. It is the standard definition of both the Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society, and is the definition supplied by Donald Watson, who is universally credited with coining the word vegan. I don't know who you are or what your agenda is, but you are mistaken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 13:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Also, there are not different "classes" of vegans. A person is either a vegan, or they are not. If they have a vegan diet, that does not necessarily make them vegan. That is standard definition, not opinion. Some of the confusion may be caused by the fact that more animals are raised and killed for food, than for any other purpose. See http://shakahara.com/donreq2.html So the primary practical difference between vegans and non-vegans, is their diet. And it is also easier to avoid animal products in food, than in clothing, and shelter, which are not labeled as clearly as to their constituents. As a reference, I cite about 45 years of being vegan, and personal acquaintance with Jay and Freya Dinshah since around 1970. What are your credentials?

We won't be divided into warring "classes." We generally respect people's freedom to adopt a vegan diet, without being vegan, and people who are not vegan but have a vegan vegan diet generally respect the principals of veganism asserted by the "founding mothers and fathers" of veganism, and do not try and assert that they are vegan.

I ask you, if I adopt the diet of lion, does that make me a lion? If I adopt a Kosher diet, without conforming to the general rules of Kashruth (using different utensils for dairy and for flesh, for example) does that make me Jewish, or even Kosher?

From http://www.vegansociety.com/about/ "Promoting ways of living free from animal products, for the benefit of people, animals, and the environment." It doesn't say promoting diet free from animal products, it says promoting ways of living free from animal products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 13:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society are better sources for a definition of veganism, than Webster's dictionary. Oddly, no-one cited the Oxford English Dictionary Definition, which is "The beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin."

And who are you. Your talk comments aren't signed.Nomenclator (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) What makes what I say "opinion" and what you say "fact"? Respectable writers of fact (as opposed to fiction) identify themselves, sign their works. Those who are trying to muddle the facts, and promote propoganda, hide behind anonymity. That is a basic tenet of journalism. We can generally devalue your assertions, if you don't sign them.

I'm going to allow you an opportunity to revert the article yourself, Ms or Mr Anonymous. I know I should have added the references in the main article, that I added here. I apologize for being so neglectful about providing references for my facts. You may add the reference I cited, yourself.Nomenclator (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless "Nomenclator" is your real name, I don't see that you're being any less anonymous than the other guy. Anyway, equally anonymously, I have to agree with their viewpoint rather than yours - in the real world, a vegan is understood principally as being someone who aims to eliminate animal products from their diet, not necessarily someone who strives tirelessly for some virtually unattainable ideal of animallessness. No small group of idealists can appropriate the word for themselves and declare anyone who doesn't meet their exacting standards to be "not a real vegan" - Wikipedia has to report on the terminology as used in the world at large (for which renowned dictionaries are, to some extent, a highly reliable source). Victor Yus (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Nomenclator, there are plenty of reliable sources making the dietary/ethical vegan distinction (see the list in the archives box at the top of this page), so this article reflects that. As for your question about which industrial practice the sentence refers to, it's the industrial practice of producing animal products. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My real name is theodore zuckerman. http://theodorezuckerman.com http://shakahara.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 16:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The vegan society and the american vegan society are authoritative sources. Associated press is most certainly not. One of the sources you cite to support your pov, actually refutes it, and confirms the facts I reported, saying "This [dietary vegan] fits the 'strict vegetarian' group, but in the best of American traditions, they then confused things further by insisting on calling themselves 'vegan'. They describe exactly what you are trying to do, confusing things by insisting on called people who have a vegan diet, vegan. You are being inconsistant and contradictory in the best tradition of propogandizing a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 16:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC) Nomenclator (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to material from the Vegan society or the American Vegan Society is Original Research. I did not write that material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If the sources are inconsistent (as seems certainly to be the case), then so must we be, or at least, we must explain gently about the inconsistency, and not take sides by declaring one lot to be right and the other wrong. Victor Yus (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

At least one of the sources cited by SlimVirgin, the International Vegetarian Union, is actually consistent with the sources I cited, and the facts I cited, and inconsistant with Slimvirgin's pov. I pointed this out above.

The Associated Press is simply not an authoritative source. The Vegan Society and the American Vegan Society are authoritative. A news or magazine article in the general press regarding veganism, is not as authoritative regarding veganism as a national vegan organization or an international organization. Why anyone would hold to the alternative view as to which is more authoritative, makes no sense - unless they were intentionally trying to propogandize against veganism or divide vegans among themselves into different classes, in an attempt to start class conflict. Nomenclator (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I remind you that I support my statements with my true identity, while SlimVirgin remains hiding beyond anonymity. This is often a tip-off as to who is telling the truth, and who is making up propaganda to promote a hidden agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 17:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your argument seems to be that an organization that has "vegan" in its name, or which is some sort of successor to those who first invented the word "vegan", get to be the sole and ultimate authorities as to what vegan "really" means. I don't accept that; the term has entered the language as a generic word, and so what it "really" means is just what the whole gamut of reliable sources tell us it means. (Would you let the Communist Party have the sole go at defining the word "communist"?) Victor Yus (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There are a variety of sources supporting the dietary/ethical veganism distinction, including scholarly sources, at Talk:Veganism/Sources for the dietary veganism distinction. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Good list. I would notice, however, that it isn't a consitent distinction - there are some sources making the distinction on the basis of what people's veganism involves (only diet vs. other things as well), while others make it on the basis of what people's veganism is motivated by (health vs. ethics). We probably need to explain these different terminological approaches a bit more explicitly. (Personally I would find it odd to use "dietary vegan" and "ethical vegan" as mutually exclusive terms.) Victor Yus (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. This again? Wikipedia is about communication, collaboration, and compromise. If you're not able to clearly communicate, collaborate, or compromise, perhaps you should find another place to write. Your own website has no limitations on original research and you need not cooperate with others. Kellen^T 19:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I will remind you all again that at least one of the sources that was cited to support the idea that the term ethical veganism is not a redundancy, and that diet-only veganism is a form of veganism, actually articulate the opposite view. Further, the idea that vegans fall into 2 main "camps" is divisive, and suggests that it may have been proposed by non-vegans whose intent was to foster divisions among vegans. Regardless of what wikipedia is about, my own goal is to reveal truth and to point out efforts at deception. That is why I point out contractions, redundancies, and ambiguities, and distinguish between denotation and connotation, and why I distinguish ascriptive or prescriptive remarks, from descriptive remarks. I feel you are using wikipedia to mislead the public about vegans, to calumnize us, and attempt to divide us. I am tryin to use it to communicate the truth. There are not multiple kinds of vegans. There is only one kind of vegan. Difference between individual vegans do not put them into different camps. We are united despite our differences, and no attempt you do to confuse the facts is going to change that.(talk) 21:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Yus "Your argument seems to be that an organization that has "vegan" in its name, or which is some sort of successor to those who first invented the word "vegan", get to be the sole and ultimate authorities as to what vegan "really" means." My argument is that the American Vegan Society, The Vegan Society, the International Vegetarian Union, and the Oxford English Dictionary, are more authoritative sources than the Associated Press, CBS News, Webster's Dictionary. Another source, that you cited in favor of your view, Joanne Stepaniak, actually supports my view "Joanne Stepaniak. Being Vegan. McGraw-Hill Professional, 2000, p. 10: "'Dietary vegan' is one way to get around the sticky issue of those who consume no animal products but do not extend animal-free philosophy beyond diet, but I'm not sure it is the best choice ... To put a qualifier before [the word] dilutes [its] meaning." I emphasise the last phrase, "to put a qualifier before [the word] dilutes [its] meaning." Greetings to the present company of meaning-diluters. That is what you are. I've attempted to clarify, but you insist on obfuscating.

That said, I'm not sure "dietary vegans" even exist. We are all, to use the redundancy, ethical vegans. My observations have been that most every person with a vegan diet, also makes at least some effort to avoid animal products in other areas too. And that makes them a plain ordinary vegan, rather than a dietary vegan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

O god, not you again. I thought we flogged this issue into the ground five years ago. Skinwalker (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomenclator, I understand what you mean about going with authoritative sources. For example, some sources state that vegetarianism includes pescetarianism -- eating fish. And so we have to go with authoritative sources for what vegetarianism is because most vegetarians do not consider pescetarianism or any type of semi-vegetarianism to be vegetarianism. But we still report that pescetarianism is considered vegetarianism to some people, and that semi-vegetarianism in general is considered a form of it. And where this differs from how we define veganism is that there are far more people, and therefore far more reliabe sources, considering that following a vegan diet makes a person a vegan than there are people and reliable sources considering that excluding all animal flesh except fish makes a person a vegetarian. Following a vegan diet is also a part of the authoritative definitions of veganism, unlike pescetarianism, which isn't a part of any authoritative definition of what vegetarianism is; it's just that the authoritative definitions of veganism extend to avoiding all animal products. But nowhere in those authoritative definitions do I see where it says that simply following the diet is not veganism; it is your interpretation that those sources are enforcing that. Joanne Stepaniak's belief is her belief; she clearly is not authoritative on this. And it's not the same as comparing what a lion or Jewish person eats. Unlike those topics, veganism is specifically about a diet and lifestyle (although all diets are a lifestyle, really), and I fail to see how embracing the diet and not the philosophy makes someone not a vegan. Unless you say it's about the "and" -- as in "diet and philosophy" -- instead of an "or," which you clearly do.

As for my previous comment not being signed; it is. It is signed with my current IP address. I don't have to disclose my real name. Most people on Wikipedia don't do it. Disclosing our real names have no bearing on the editing process, except for in cases where having revealed one's identity is problematic. And not revealing our identities doesn't mean that we aren't trustworthy; it means we respect our privacy. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with your changes to the lead, Victor Yus. I removed "total", though, per my edit summary. "Total" implies that abstaining from consuming animal flesh but not other animal food products (such as dairy or eggs) isn't complete vegetarianism. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on the lead, Victor. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) As regards "strict/total vegetarian", the next section of the article says this as well, together with a citation (though it isn't clear how the citated source supports these exact two terms). And if the terms really are used, I don't see how the objection to "total" fails to apply to "strict" as well. Intiutively I would understand "strict vegetarian" to be someone who is particularly strict about avoiding slaughtered animal products, not necessarily someone who goes further than avoiding those products. Victor Yus (talk) 08:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Victor Yus, "strict" and "total" are two different things, though. "Strict" doesn't imply that a person who doesn't abstain from dairy or eggs, or other non-flesh food products derived from animals, and/or isn't particularly strict about avoiding by-products of animal slaughter, is not a complete vegetarian. The word "total" does. "Total," meaning "complete" or "all the way." As for that last line in your above comment about "going further," as we know, going "further than avoiding those products" is what veganism is about. I don't mind that "total" is used to describe the diet of vegans in the History section, seeing as that section is discussing the history of the term, but I do object to its use as a descriptor in the lead or in general when referring to dietary vegans...per what I've stated on the matter. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A strict vegetarian is not a vegan. Their food is vegan but he is not. This is correct: Veganism /ˈviːgənɪzəm/ is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products in all areas of life. Veganism emerged as a philosophy of life that respects the sentient animals, as well as associated to a strict vegetarian diet (vegan diet). A follower of veganism is called a vegan.Xxxzenicxxx (talk)

You are the one who has been adding "or strict vegetarian" for "dietary vegan." And according to reliable sources, as already addressed above, they are vegans because they follow the vegan diet; they simply don't follow the rest of the philosophy. It's because of that reason that you and Nomenclator don't consider such vegans to be vegans, but far too many reliable sources disagree with you. Read above. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 01:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Xxxzenicxxx, could you please stop reverting? The British Vegan Society is not in control of the way the word "veganism" is used, nor is any other society. The word has passed into the language, and it's a living word, which means it is defined by its use. And there's no question that some people (including reliable sources, and people on the various vegan discussion boards) use it to describe adhering to a vegan diet, even if they don't ascribe to a broader vegan philosophy. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

People often use words informally. There is nothing wrong with doing this, and an informal definition of the word vegan would allow you to describe someone who has a vegan diet, but just loves to hunt deer, for trophy purposes, as a vegan. But strictly speaking, such a person does not comform to the formal definition of vegan. The purpose of an encyclopedia is different than the purpose of a dictionary. Dictionaries often report how people use words precisely, as well as informally, and report primary meanings, secondary meanings, and collogquial meaning. Encyclopedias try to to provide a more formal and precise information about what something truly is, rather than what the uneducated hoi poloi think it is. The fact that a dicitonary defintion of vegan can be "someone who adheres to a vegan diet," or that people use the word vegan this way, on message boards, informally (I do the same thing myself) should not be used to support an encylopedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclator (talk • contribs) 21:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I take your point that that would be absurd (a dietary vegan who goes hunting and still uses the word "vegan"). But that would cover a vanishingly small number of cases. Two of the scholary sources we use for this distinction are full professors and leading animal rights advocates, Gary Francione and Robert Garner. Francione acknowledges the distinction and promotes ethical veganism. Garner writes that he is a dietary vegan who does not wear leather. This tells us that the distinction exists among subject-matter experts, not only on message boards. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't tell me that. I have no idea what you are trying to tell me, in your remarks about Garner. And according the your definition of dietary vegan, there would be nothing absurd about a vegan who goes trophy hunting. It would fit right in, precisely, with your definition. Someone reading wikipedia, to find out what a vegan is, and what veganism is all about, would learn that someone who does frequent trophy hunting, but never eats anything they hunt, and confines their diet to vegetable matter, keeps a 10 square foot freezer filled with chicken breasts and lambs legs, and sells them to people who come to her door, and raises minks in her back yard, slaughters them, and makes furry mink clothes, could be described as being a kind of vegan, a dietary vegan. Nomenclator (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, informally, especially if communicating in spoken language, I might say that such a person is a dieatry vegan - meaning that they had a vegan diet, but not making an effort to be really precise. But when writing an encyclopedia article I try to make an effort to be more precise, and communicate more factually, by using the phrase "person with a vegan diet" rather than the somewhat vague and misleading "dietary vegan." Of course if I am talking to a bunch of vegans, I may not be so careful, and talk about "dietary vegans" when discussing people who care about not clogging their arteries, but don't care to go to too much effort, or any effort, to avoid buying vegan shoes, or buying leather furniture.Nomenclator (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2012 (UTC) But I don't have to be so careful, when talking to my fellow vegans, because I know that my fellow vegans already know that the person who has a vegan diet for health reasons only, and is an avid deer hunter because they like trophy heads in their living room, is not actually a vegan. But if I am trying to be crystal clear, to people going to an encyclopedia for information, I use the more formal usage. Context. Nomenclator (talk) 22:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I noticed the first sentences of the article had been changed to take my suggestions into account, and that it has stayed this way for quite a while. Saying that "distinctions are sometimes made" is not the same as saying the distinctions are valid, as the article formerly had said. Nomenclator (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Um...

Why is there a box opposite the contents called "Tool Box" I've never seen this before on a talk page. Am I meant to be able to access this feature? 212.250.138.33 (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

It's from the Template:Featured article tools template. All the information is public, so there's no issue with anyone accessing it. Kellen^T 15:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on The China Study and osteoporosis

There are other wiki pages that discuss the condition of acidosis, the condition of increased acidity in blood and tissues, and they do not support your opinion that there is a link between animal products and osteoporosis. I do agree that T. Colin Campbell claims in his book that animal protein is linked to osteoporosis, but just because one person claims that there is a link between two things doesn’t mean that we can’t provide critical analysis or provide links to pages that discuss the medical condition in detail.. The actual citations on The China Study wiki pages are available on google books (pages 205 and 208), and I would invite you to review it. The methodology that T. Colin Campbell claims that meat causes acidosis is not really explained in his book and is not consistant with the acidosis wiki page. However, there is considerable evidence that acidosis doesn’t cause the kind of medical problems that Campbell mentions. For example, see the following studies and reviews:

• [Milk and acid-Base Balance: Hypothesis versus scientific evidence] Recent critical analysis that shows that milk and dairy do NOT cause metabolic acidosis
• [Dietary acid-base balance in adolescent sprint athletes: a follow-up study] Concludes that athletes who eat meat don’t increase their acid load
• [Dietary acid load and risk of hypertension: the Rotterdam Study] Concludes there is no link between acid load and hypertension

I would also encourage you to visit the alkaline diet page. Both the alkaline diet and acidosis pages have critically evaluated what acidosis is and it’s not consistent with Campbell’s claims. If you want to argue this some more, lets take it out of the Veganism pages and to one of the other pages.DivaNtrainin (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Milk, eggs and honey

I have added sections on these animal products with an explanation on why vegans avoid them. I have edited this article for several years but it was only this week that I noticed this important distinction was missing! Nirvana2013 (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Heavy emphasis on food

This article is slanted heavily toward food and strict-vegetarianism, not so much animal rights which is really what veganism is about.75.202.47.116 (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

The is already an article about animal rights. This article is about veganism. While many vegans embrace veganism out of concern for animal rights, there all sorts of reasons (such as religious, dietary or environmental) that have nothing to do with animal rights. There is a reason to keep the two distinct topics "veganism" and "animal rights" separated into two different articles. Gabbe (talk) 17:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

There aren't multiple reasons for veganism. Veganism is about animal rights. If you're a Buddhist, Jain or follow a vegan-style diet for health or religious reasons, that's certainly a laudable, but it's not veganism - it's strict vegetarianism.

Reality isn't black and white. There are multiple reasons, and this article covers them. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 10:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be two Veganism articles and a disambiguation page. One would cover Veganism the philosophy of avoidance of all animal products, food or otherwise, and the other would cover the diet of "strict vegetarians" who still buy leather, wool and animal byproducts. The confusion is including all the dietary definition confusion with the philosophy stance.--TheChin! (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reality isn't black and white, and this article covers the shades of grey appropriately. We don't have two different topics, we have one with different attributes. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

There may be alternative medical practitioners that agree this is the case, but the Vegan Society (D. Watson, founder), provides a single definition: "a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products". I'll concede I was incorrect on the "ethical" implications of veganism based on this definition (whether I agree or not - I think this is implied), but this definition certainly doesn't incorporate any "medicinal" definition or make any medical claims, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.87.211 (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Reality is somewhat more fluid than a strict, static definition, and is inclusive, not exclusive. Viriditas (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Respectfully, a person following the style of diet in this article for reasons other than animal rights is a strict vegetarian. A vegan is by definition a strict vegetarian, but the inverse it not necessarily true. Bill Clinton would be one example of a strict vegetarian who is not vegan. Hence, an article on veganism should focus on a philosophy of animal welfare (which the strict vegetarian diet is an extension of). The article as written, places the emphasis on the diet, rather than the philosophy.75.202.47.116 (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Veganism started out centered around dietary choice (see History) and over the years has developed into a larger philosophy. However, feel free to make your own edits. Nirvana2013 (talk) 18:33, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

If the vegan philosophy has expanded (and this is certainly debatable), then it should be referenced in the article. AFAIK, Watson defined the original term, which has always been centered on animal rights -- the term came into being as a contrast to "vegetarianism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.224.57.80 (talk) 07:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Me again. What's the deal with classifying this under "project Medicine"?? While I _firmly_ believe there are health benefits to a vegan-style *diet*, veganisn isn't "medicine". It's a philosophy of excluding animals and animal products, on ethical grounds, from ones' life to the maximum extent possible. Nothing more. There are health benefits to baseball, meditation, herbs, astrology, etc., according to the respective articles, but we don't classify any of these as "medecine". Would you render immediate aid to a heart attack/stroke patient with veganism? If you did, you would be classified as a charlatan.75.224.57.80 (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop with the ridiculous straw men and antiquated anecdotes from the 1950s please. It's 2012 going on 2013. Dean Ornish isn't a charlatan, and the "lifestyle approach" to fighting disease with vegan dietary choices is mainstream. Viriditas (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait -- I support the health benefits that Mr. Orinish and yourself are espousing. I support veganism, and I fully agree there may be a positive health benefit of following such as diet. I also support the placement of this article into the WP category of Animal Rights. But I think there needs to be more sound evidence of a relationship between veganism and human health to place this article into a category regarding "medicine". <- When one invokes this term, there is a higher standard of proof which this article (in its current state) does not provide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.87.211 (talk) 09:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

75.224.57.80: If you look at other talk pages that have the "WikiProject Medicine" banner (see subcategories here, for example), you'll notice that a lot of them are not "medicine" as such. Just as with this article, they are articles that are of interest to WikiProject Medicine, which is another thing altogether. Gabbe (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Veganism is about animal rights, first and foremost, and any "medicine" claim should take a lower precedence than the AR banner on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.202.87.211 (talk) 09:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't, just as vegetarianism isn't primarily about Hinduism or Buddhism. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

insufficient citing " Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition"

Yesterday I deleted the line "Several cases of severe infant or child malnutrition (resulting in spine malformation and fractures) and some infant fatalities have been reported in families in which parents fed their child and themselves a poorly planned vegan diet." along with its "source" reference. As I noted in my edit comment, the citation only notes ONE case (not "several") of malnutrition, and that case doesn't even actually link malnutrition to veganism.

User SlimVirgin added it back in without properly noting why or adding more sources.

I would like to have the line deleted permanently UNLESS BETTER SOURCES ARE PROVIDED.

Please advise, wikipedia community!

Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You evidently did not read the last paragraph. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph which states, "In 2001, a vegan couple from west London were sentenced to three years' community rehabilitation after admitting they had starved their baby to death." ?? This relates the death to starvation, not veganism.

Also, it looks like someone has since added another source to the sentence (though not commented here about it). The source is an Op-Ed, and as per Wikipedia policy on identifying reliable sources, this is not reliable.

More thoughts on this please? It seems irresponsible to keep the statement as-is. Thanks! Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:23, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that whole paragraph is problematic. The first source is okay, but we might be selectively reporting what it says. The second source -- the one that makes the point about twins -- is a primary source (someone reporting on his own study), and it's not about vegans, it's about how women who consume growth hormone when they eat animal products are more likely to have twins. It's presented in our article as though it's a bad thing that vegans don't consume growth hormone.

The sources for the baby deaths are all news articles. Two are opinion pieces by Nina Planck and Dr. Amy Lanou. The former has no qualification in nutrition or anything related, she apparently believes that butter and lard are good for people, and her husband owns a cheese store. Two of the cases mentioned are about parents starving their children to death, and the parents raised veganism as some kind of defence. But giving your child nothing but apple juice and soy milk has arguably nothing to do with veganism; that is just starvation. What we need are sources that go into more detail about what happened, and that offer an overview of the "babies as vegans" issue -- either very high-quality news sources or academic secondary sources, so long as they are fairly recent. I wouldn't object to removing that material in the meantime.

The only reason I restored it, Wikidsoup, is that I think this article needs to address the issue in some form, simply because newspapers have. So if we say nothing it will look like a deliberate omission. But if we agree that we're removing the material temporarily until we find good sources, then I have no problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and well put, SlimVirgin. It's important to discuss this topic, but the currently existing info is not well based. I will try to help with researching this further when I have time. If others could too, that would be great. Thanks. Wikidsoup _[talk] 20:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to tidy this a little. I'll do more but for now, that section looks like this. I removed the thing about twins, rewrote some of the advice about vitamins so that we're sticking closely to the source, and removed the advice to take α-linolenic acid, which was based on one study and seemed not to stick closely to it. I removed the low birth weight because I couldn't read the source; I will get hold of a copy and will restore if it really does say that and it seems significant (if it's based on one self-reported study, the text should make that clear). And I rewrote the part about the baby deaths to make clearer that these were isolated criminal acts (or perhaps acts of parents who were mentally ill, or for some other reason not functioning well). We could still use some better sources, but perhaps this is better than the previous version, which can be seen here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! That's such a better, fairer and more accurate representation of the stories. Very nicely done. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Demographics

Hi Harel, regarding this edit -- "... a July 2012 Gallup poll found 2 percent report being vegan, 91 percent 'not vegan,' and 7 percent reported 'no opinion'" -- I can't see the significance to this article of including 91 percent "not vegan," and 7 percent "no opinion" (source).

Was the previous version not better? "In 2006 a poll by Harris Interactive suggested that 1.4 percent were dietary vegans, a 2008 survey for the Vegetarian Resource Group reported 0.5 percent, or one million, and a July 2012 Gallup poll suggested two percent." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the older version is better; if a reader wants the details for each poll they can read the references. Kellen^T 09:46, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up SlimVirgin. Let me explain what the main issue here is. I agree that people can go to the study for details - such as gender, age, etc. And of course there is always the margin of possible error, standard. There is in this case something else above and beyond that, something that does not exist everywhere in research, namely the ratio of "neither 'yes' nor 'no'" to 'yes'.

That ratio makes a difference (I have taught quantitative literacy at university and have pointed out to students that while "1% changing to 2%" seems like a small change, it's a doubling, for example) Here the issue is the above ratio; it only takes a small fraction of the 'neithers' to be vegans with a definitional confusion to change the outcome to a higher prevalence - particularly in light of the fact the study author(s) admit there was definitional issue: they note: ""vegans apparently view themselves as different from, rather than a subset of, vegetarians; most of the [respondents] who said 'yes' to the vegan question had said 'no' to the vegetarian question" If 1 or 2 percentage points out of those 7 or even most of them a 'not' vegans when looked at in more detail, the overall numbers are not different, still "ninty-something percent" non-vegan. But if a mere 1/7th of the "neither 'yes' nor 'no'" respondents had a definitional issue (as the study acknowledges at least some existed) then suddenly the 2% becomes 3%, a huge 50% higher.

As a side note, this Gallup study has anti-veg bias in the writeup of the summary. Not only do they go out of their way to call the percentage "scant." They even make a mathematical mistake in the summary of the results when they go out of their way to say, see, the percentage has not increased in the more than 10 years we've been studying this, it's always been 5-6% - very misleading since they just admitted that there was no "are you vegan?" question in the past while in the present one had "most" of the self-described vegans checking 'no' for 'are you vegetarian?' so an increase of as much as 5%-to-7% (a large change in the proportion) is compatible with the results. Similarly they are being coy about their 94% in past studies now a 91% "not vegan" (and at least some of those 91% are likely vegetarian, making the percent 'neither vegetarian nor vegan' some number even smaller than 91%, versus "94%" earsier. (only 1% were 'neither yes nor no' for the 'vegatarian?' question by comparison)

To be clear, I do not think that ourreaders need to know all the details I just outlined. But they should be warned, or alerted, about one thing: that a huge, whopping 7% (very huge compared to the 2% saying 'yes') listed themselves as neither 'yes' nor 'no' - since only 5% listed as 'yes vegetarian' it can't be that all that 7% are those vegetarians) Wikipedia readers need tob alerted about the possible under-counting (I don't feel it's necessary to say 'possible under-counting') to at least know about the existance of the whopping 7% who said neither 'yes' nor 'no' to "are you vegan?" If we want to trim things down a bit, we could leave the 7% in but skip "91% said yes since (given that 100% have to give an answer the way this is organized) it is a logical consequence of "2% said 'yes' to 'are you vegan?' and 7% said neither 'yes' nor 'no' to the yes/no question" - how's that? Thanks again for the Talk page alert :-) Harel (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harel, thanks, I see what you're saying, but I don't think the reader will pick up on any of that unless we spell it out and we can't spell it out because of OR. None of these surveys tells us much, in my view, either because the samples are too small, or because "vegan" isn't clearly defined. I wouldn't read too much into any of the examples. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:59, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (why do I keep thinking someone is trying to sell us cigarettes when I say that? ha ha jk) you seem very professional and definitely not anti-veg...so while I still feel it's important, I am willing to let it go. May I make one last attempt as compromise? I agree that one has to take all such survey results with a grain of salt since, to the extent they are scientific, they are very imperfect scientific instruments (even before you add sometimes not unbiased interpretation in their press releases..) So if that's what you mean by "not reading too much into" any one, then I agree. I would not go as far as they don't tell us much because some trends are visible in surveys. I would add that this issue (what percentage have a vegan diet) is only going to become more and more important over the years - climate change, peak oil, global population and lower crop yeilds will all put pressures towards a more plant-based diet. Thus more so than many (not all but many) other stats - this is one stat which is very important to keep (even imperfect) tabs on - what percent eating which diet. So here is my suggested alternative: we can add a short disclaimer for all of the stats, feel free to put into your own words but something like, "While having some accuracy, the precision of the results is limited by the fact that many of these surveys do not define the term 'vegan'" possibly adding "in some surveys the percentage of respondents who choose neither 'vegan' nor 'not vegan' is several times larger than those of select 'vegan,' possibly due to definitional aspects"

This may not be super-short however, keeping in mind that, I am confident based on my own research that by 2030 and maybe by 2020 wikipedia will very possibly have by then a graph or a table showing the change in percentage over the years - for the simple fact that WP keeps track of key major trends over time, and is something like population that is the beginning tail of a non-linear (faster than linear) increasing trends in society - for now mostly by choice. However you feel that this analysis, if we at least agree on the other issue, that keeping track over the years is a key aspect that will continue into the 2020s and beyond, how about a general disclaimer about all surveys in terms of definitions (or lack thereof), such as that suggested above? Harel (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's worth keeping mind the difference between this and an election poll where x% are for Obama, y% are for Romney and z% are undecided. That z% might truly feel ambivalent, or end up not voting, etc. In this case however that 7%, each and every one of them, given any set definition, either is, or is not, following a vegan diet.

But notwithstanding the interesting other points I feel now I could have been clearer and more direct about the main conern. The issue is this. If the results are 94% saying "no" to whether they are vegetarian and 5% saying "yes" and 1% saying neither yes nor no, reporting in the article that 5% reported being vegetarian gives readers a reasonably accurate picture of the findings (independent of how excellently reliable, or not, we may think these are) of the survey. However in contrast, when the results are 2% reporting "yes" to vegan, 91% reporting "no" and a whopping 7% reporting neither, and if we in that case still report in the WP article only that "2% reported being vegan" then in this case we are giving a misleading picture to our readers. In the latter case, reporting only the 2% does not give our readers an accurate picture of the findings of the survey. That's my fundamental concern. Surely we can agree that we don't want to give a misleading impression, which would be the result in this case, by reporting only thet 2%? It would take very little extra space to just add 7% reported neither "yes" nor "no" to "are you vegan"? I hope this fundemantal concern about not giving a misleading impression of the results/findings, is clearer. Harel (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The poll involved phoning 1,014 people, chosen at random from every state in the US. Therefore they probably encountered people who did not know what "vegan" meant. I was thinking they might also have encountered people who were vegan, but did not call themselves vegan in the belief that owning a pair of leather shoes means they can't use that word of themselves. But looking at the question, it was "in terms of your eating preferences, do you consider yourself to be vegan, or not?" This is a very straightforward question about diet only, but seven percent replied "no opinion." That suggests to me that they didn't know what the word meant, and that means they weren't vegans, who would know what was being asked. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

We can speculate why they chose neither. As a vegan since the 1990s I know that's a tricky thing to do however. On the one hand, it might possibly be that they were not vegan "even in diet". Or, it might be that they were vegan by some definitions but not by others (e.g. honey consumption). That's a very plausible explanation for why some, at least (perhaps not all, but perhaps more than a few) might have left it blank. Either way that's not really pertinent to the issue I am raising. I also don't think we can be 100% sure sitting here as WP editors whether 100% of those who marked "neither" were "not vegan" (it's not our place to decide whether honey counts or not, even if we had the omniscient powers to know their diets, which we don't know) we really can't assume we know for sure the exact status of everyone in that 7%..but that too isn't really directly related to the red flag I am raising.

The issue I'm concerned with is that the entry should not give a misleading impression to readers, about the findings of the study (again, whether we agree with the findings, or whether we think all 7% were secretly non-vegans or all 7% are all vegans, or whether the study's design was outstanding or not, is not relevant). We're reporting on what this study found - what it's findings were (warts and all). Now in such cases, when the findings are (for example), 5% yes, 94% no, and 1% other, as was the case with the "vegetarian?" question, then one can reasonably argue that reporting just "5% said yes" gives a "reasonable summary" for readers of what the findings of the study were. But in a situation when the findings were 2% yes, 91% no, and a whopping 7% "neither" (three and a half times as much as the "no" group) then if we only tell readers just that "2% said yes" and nothing else, then readers are given a misleading summary - the picture painted in their minds when they hear only the "2%" is going to be inaccurate. I think it's important that whatever we choose for our summary-of-findings, that it not give a misleading impression. That's why it seems accceptable to not include the "1% said neither" for the vegetarian question, but raises a red flag of giving a highly misleading summary to readers, in the case of the "2% said yes" (and left unsaid: only 91% said no, and a huge 7%, three-and-a-half times larger than 2, said neither).

Surely you agree that a summary should not give readers a misleading impression of the findings? Surely adding a few characters to avoid misleading our readers and thus increase article quality, is worthwhile, don't you think? Harel (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary attribution?

"Reed Mangels of the department of nutrition at the University of Massachusetts Amherst writes that a" is in the B12 section. But it precedes what should only be basic health facts about B12 deficiency, I think, so I don't think the attribution is necessary. Biosthmors (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Biosthmors, thanks. There's in-text attribution in places for various reasons. I'll look at that section again with a view to moving it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikidsoup, I see you removed the in-text attribution. I've restored it, but moved it to a different place in that section. The reason it's there is that a lot of the section depends on her, so I want to give her credit. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:57, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Parking a couple of new sections

I'm uncomfortable with the following two sections added recently, which I have removed and pasted here for further discussion.

Firstly,

"UN Supports Veganism"

"A global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger, fuel poverty and the worst impacts of climate change." United Nations

As the global population surges towards a predicted 9.1 billion people by 2050, western tastes for diets rich in meat and dairy products are unsustainable, says the report from United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) international panel of sustainable resource management.

It says: "Impacts from agriculture are expected to increase substantially due to population growth increasing consumption of animal products. Unlike fossil fuels, it is difficult to look for alternatives: people have to eat. A substantial reduction of impacts would only be possible with a substantial worldwide diet change, away from animal products."

I think this material might be suitable if we remove some of the original research and fix the attribution. For example, the IPSRM citation is to a presentation given at a workshop, and is not an official statement of the UN. Ultimately I am unsure if a workshop presentation is a reliable source.

Secondly, from the always-fun pregnancies and children section:

It has also been reported that vegan breast milk is insufficient for growing infants and babies, and poses a real risk of stunted growth and brain development. The New York Times reports: "The breast milk of vegetarian and vegan mothers is dramatically lower in a critical brain fat, DHA, than the milk of an omnivorous mother and contains less usable vitamin B6. Carnitine, a vital amino acid found in meat and breast milk, is nicknamed “vitamin Bb” because babies need so much of it. Vegans, vegetarians and people with poor thyroid function are often deficient in carnitine and its precursors.

The most risky period for vegan children is weaning. Growing babies who are leaving the breast need complete protein, omega-3 fats, iron, calcium and zinc. Compared with meat, fish, eggs and dairy, plants are inferior sources of every one."

I don't like citing health claims to an op-ed in the NYT. Ideally we should look to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for specific statements of this sort. Comments? Skinwalker (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I'd like to change the date format to day-month-year (17 December 2012) because it looks tidier (no commas). This is the sort of style issue we're meant to ask about before changing, so if anyone objects please let me know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought this was already the recommended format for WP. If not, it should be. Go for it. Kellen^T 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, done. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Davis and Regan

In "Debate about animals killed in crop harvesting", Steven Davis certainly seems to misunderstand and thus misrepresent Regan's position on minimizing harm to animals. In The Case for Animal Rights, beginning on p. 302, Regan devotes considerable space to explaining why he rejects what he calls the "minimize harm principle" (i.e., the utilitarian position that Davis attributes to him). So I propose deleting Davis's claim that Regan has a utilitarian position on this issue (Regan has frequently explained why his rights position is incompatible with utilitarianism), while retaining reference to Davis's claim that "a plant-based diet would kill more than one containing beef from grass-fed ruminants." Scales (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Dodgy citation

There is a citation [15] that is nearly all about vegetarianism. If it doesn't address veganism specifically, it can't be used to make claims about vegan diets, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Several studies use "vegetarian" to mean plant-based diet, i.e. strict vegetarian (as the text says). You have to read the study to know how they're using it, and when they don't specify they tend to mean plant-based diet. The one you removed seems to be about plant-based diets, given the point about low consumption of saturated fat. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Aren't you kind of assuming? I wouldn't think it refers to veganism; vegetarians undoubtedly eat more vegetables on average than omnivores. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article

It seems to me that this article is biased, especially in its section about health effects. There are *plenty* of counter-arguments, one need only look for them; and yet there is no mention of that fact.

68.199.204.112 (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Rewording needed

...some of the top athletes in certain endurance sports – for instance, the Ironman triathlon and the ultramarathon – practise veganism, including raw veganism.

Aside from Brendan Brazier and Robert Cheeke, the lead overstates the case. The point isn't that some athletes are vegan (and the lead presents this somewhat dishonestly), the point is that you can be be vegan and still be a competitive athlete. This argument has more to do with negating myths about protein intake (for example, "you have to eat meat to compete") than with athletics. Viriditas (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. snacks _[talk] 03:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Lead images

I would like to propose replacing all of the images in the infobox (and perhaps even other images in this article) with selected images from the SweetOnVeg photostream on flickr. By all accounts, these are the best free images available. I'll start uploading a few for discussion purposes. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Spring rolls

proposed new section: Arguments against veganism

There are many articles, research papers and studies that have enough weight to merit a section of criticism against the vegan diet. I fear that this is something that some vegans would not want to see on this page as the article appears to be written from a very biased prospective. I am proposing that a new section be added as described above. Please comment as I would like to hear all feedback before embarking on this journey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.93.70.40 (talk • contribs) 2:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

We have looked at the evidence in the past and decided to incorporate all criticism in the context of its subject, as is best practice. If you have a specific criticism that needs to be addressed, please raise it. Viriditas (talk) 08:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that there is a section on health benefits, which is clearly a Pro-veganism section. Locating all criticism in other sections effectively "hides" it. It seems rather biased and I agree that a specific section is needed to point out potential issues with this type of diet.72.37.248.20 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Either that or remove the Health Benefits section and incorporate it into the other sections in the same manner as the proposed Criticisms section. AnalogWeapon (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi 71.93.70.40, could you post here the sources you intend to use? That would give us an idea of the kind of content you're proposing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't notice this was an old thread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The pronunciation of quinoa

I removed it, and it was reverted. I want to explain why I think it should be removed. First of all, it is not relevant to this article. Secondly, anyone who want to know how to pronounce the word can simply click on the word and get an instant answer. Thirdly, why mark quinoa but not all the other exotic foods mentioned in this article? Lastly, shouldn't the pronunciation labeled in IPA? Yel D'ohan (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

IMO, you are completely correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted because it's the only word for a product lots of vegans eat that's pronounced counter-intuitively, so to help readers avoid going to a store and asking for kwinoa, I thought they'd appreciate knowing it's pronounced keenwa. The article is here to help readers. As for IPA, very few people can decipher it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally, we do not give pronunciations for items tangentially related to the subject. The pronunciation of quinoa is only tangentially related to veganism. Your theory here would have us littering thousands of articles with pronunciations for quinoa, Greenwich, and thousands of other words that have pronunciations that you consider to be counter-intuitive. Is there a particular reason it should be done here but should not be done everywhere else? If not, there is no reason to go against the general consensus, you need to discuss this at a higher level.

Generally, when we do give pronunciations, we use IPA. Is there a particular reason it shouldn't be used here but should be used everywhere else? If not, there is no reason to go against the general consensus, you need to discuss this at a higher level. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and Eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA)

These two essential fatty acids are synthesized in humans from ALA, which is discussed in this article.

However the efficiency of conversion is controversial, with some studies showing that for many individuals enough EPA and DHA cannot be produced from ALA. Getting enough pre-formed EPA and DHA from unprocessed vegan sources is not possible, although there are commericially available processed vegan sources.

This seems to me an important issue for vegan diets, as there are many health issues for low EPA and DHA, and as there are vegan products available to supply them.

This information is already mentioned scattered through various other wikipedia articles. There is extensive research on the subject so there is no lack of secondary or tertiary sources to create a new section DHA and EPA, or extending the present essential fatty acid section to include them.

For example this review article:

"With no other changes in diet, improvement of blood DHA status can be achieved with dietary supplements of preformed DHA, but not with supplementation of ALA, EPA, or other precursors. "

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/19269799/reload=0;jsessionid=YPcAjZLMLHjpPp84lZnV.4f

Brenna JT, Salem N Jr, Sinclair AJ, Cunnane SC, International Society for the Study of Fatty Acids and Lipids, ISSFAL Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Savage Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA. jtb4@cornell.edu Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids [2009, 80(2-3):85-91]

RiceMilk (talk) 19:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi RiceMilk, we have to be careful about recommending supplements here, or anything out of the ordinary, so everything in those sections is sourced to mainstream specialist sources and/or review articles, all or most of which discuss veganism. We would need something similar for anything we add (see WP:MEDRS). Does Vegan Outreach mention the issue you've raised, as a matter of interest? The reason I ask is that they're quite thorough about vegan nutrition and often a good place to start if you're looking for studies. Their health site is here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Category:Vegans

There's a discussion here about whether to delete this category, in case anyone wants to comment. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy

I removed "and fish" from the phrase "meat and fish" in the intro. It's redundant.

Thanks.

--74.141.163.51 (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, you did bring this to the talk page at SummerPhD's request, but I feel that you should have waited for discussion to take place about the matter before removing "fish" again.

I'm sure that "fish" was included because so many people think that semi-vegetarianism, especially pescetarianism, is vegetarianism; it's why, like I stated on the Vegetarianism talk page in February of this year and times before that, the Vegetarian Society has spoken out about it. If you do a Google search about vegetarians eating fish, you'll see that many people think that eating fish, but not other meat, is vegetarian. Even looking at the current status of the Pescetarianism talk page shows that debate. This matter boils down to the definition of meat. Many people don't consider fish to be meat. Note that the Meat article also mentions that some definitions of meat exclude fish. Pescetarian has also been defined by Merriam-Webster as "a vegetarian who eats fish," and later as "one whose diet includes fish but no meat"; the latter fact can be seen in this Merriam-Webster link, where enough people in the comments section complained about its definition of pescetarian and therefore compelled Merriam-Webster to change its definition (at least on that site) from including the words "no meat" to including "no other meat." Pescetarianism being thought of as vegetarianism is such a common belief that it is important to clarify what is meant by meat when speaking of vegetarianism. But because stating "meat and fish" can be considered redundant, such as to you, stating "meat (including fish)" would be better. I have no strong opinion on this matter with regard to this article, however. Flyer22 (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

For clarity, we should retain the "or fish" explanation. Colloquially, "meat" may or may not include fish. "Meatless Fridays" for many people means there will be fish for dinner, for example. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No criticism

Why isn't there a section of criticism towards veganism? This article sounds pretty biased in favor of the subject almost ignoring the criticism or drawbacks of being a vegan. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Camilo, anything that might count as criticism can be added to the specific part of the article that it deals with. Can you give examples, along with sources, of the material you have in mind? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I originally added all the criticism I could find. Is it still in the article? Viriditas (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, and I'm not really sure what Camilo might mean by criticism. When we describe a particular health issue, for example, we offer whatever views the scientists offer (which is usually veganism is good for X, not so good for Y). If Camilo could give specific examples, with sources, we could take a look to see whether something is missing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we might be on the same page here. As someone who previously did the research looking for criticism, I think it's safe to say I'm familiar with most of it. The criticism falls into two camps: poorly planned diets, and philosophical arguments (including ecological and environmental arguments). This article should cover both as it did in previous versions, however, I must say, as someone who has looked carefully at this criticism, it is very weak. In other words, the "drawbacks" as the OP puts it (or the "risks) aren't as great as we are led to believe, however, issues have arisen in the medical literature about the risks of newborn babies on vegan diets. I believe an older version of this article once covered this topic. As for "drawbacks", there seem to be very little, as the benefits of a vegan diet, shown by the published evidence, are enormous, for both the health of the individual and the ecological health of society as a whole. In fact, the benefits are so great, one might almost be inclined to think that there was some kind of economic "conspiracy" by the meat industry to influence people to use and consume animal products against their better judgment. People who have successfully given up using animal products reach a point where they wonder how it is that they ever ate meat in the first place, to the point where if they see meat in the supermarket or smell it cooking at a BBQ they can come close to vomiting. And when one looks carefully at this question, and really digs deep into the answer, we see that the meat industry has slipped their tentacles into the very fabric of society, from school lunch programs to cheap fast food to advertising and entertainment. And when one really examines this artificial construct, we see that eating meat is not natural as we are taught in school and led to believe by university departments funded by the meat industry, nor is it essential to our daily life. At the end of the day, if you are honest and open minded, you must conclude that meat eating is an addiction like tobacco or alcohol, or any other drug, and it must be dealt with like any other psychological disorder. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no serious criticism on this article, most of you must be vegans anyway, I think it's important to make a call to average editors and have them add information that is less biased in favor of veganism. I think this criticism and the impracticability and drawbacks of such extreme lifestyle should be all put in one section as it is the custom here. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Camilo, there is a lot of serious criticism in this article. Have you read it? See the section on the "Debate about animals killed in crop harvesting" as only one example. There are many more. As you were already informed on your talk page, it is not the custom to have one section here, but to place the criticism in relevant sections, which is what was done here. You may want to review this essay and this policy for guidance. In Canada and the United States (as only two examples), veganism is not an "extreme lifestyle", but actually quite mainstream. Restaurants, food products, and clothing and accessories are designed solely for vegans, and they can be found everywhere. There are entire businesses and industries devoted to selling vegan products. One of the benefits of the vegan lifestyle is that it can directly address the most pressing environmental and ecological problems facing the planet, allowing single individuals to help mitigate a wide range of issues simply by changing what they eat. Viriditas (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your username means greenness, I doubt your opinion is not biased in favor of veganism, that's my point, we need editors that don't identify with veganism to also look at the subject from a purely neutral and scientific point of view. That's all I am saying. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 18:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You doubt my opinion is not biased in favor of veganism based on my username? That's not very scientific of you. If you were scientific, you would look through my contributions to this article[16] and the talk page[17] and then come to a conclusion based on evidence. It sounds to me like you don't use science very much at all. Your kind of snap judgments are better suited to religion. Perhaps you believe it is your religious duty to subjugate the animals of the Earth as it says in the Bible? That would make sense since your user name "Camilo" is translated as "helper to the priest", and you likely chose your user name (or were named) after the Italian priest Camillus de Lellis. Because this is evidently, true, we can then assume that you take Genesis 1: 27–28 and Psalm 8:4–6 to heart, believing it is your duty to dominate every living thing and to eat them in the name of your god who has given you this power to subjugate the animals. We need editors that don't identify with this religious POV to look at the subject neutrally. That's all I am saying. Of course, what I am saying is called an ad hominem, and you should know better, Camilo. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, any problems with veganism are buried here. For example, numerous reliable sources of the highest caliber state in no uncertain terms, "natural food sources of vitamin B12 are limited to foods that come from animals." (U.S. National Institutes of Health) Rather than starting the section on B12 with a straight ahead statement that natural vegan foods do not contain this necessary nutrient, our section rambles on about what B12 is, what it is for, etc. before giving a watered down version littered with crap about "in most cases" and "at least in the West", citing a vegan book that, I'm guessing, argues that various obscure algae that science is still investigating might contain bio-available B12 (or useless analogues) and gee, if you eat veggies covered with shit they probably have some B12 in them. This "quite mainstream" diet is followed by, at most, 2% of the population. It is the natural human diet, though you need careful menu planning and artificial supplements to follow it. Numerous top level athletes follow it, until you examine the claims and find that the individual athlete tried it for part of a season, until he decided he needed to add in a little chicken, fish and eggs to his diet. But no, this article isn't biased at all. - SummerPhD (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That's actually not true. I did the necessary research on the criticism that is in this article. The lead appropriately ends with a necessary statement about B12 and the subject is covered in the relevant section. B12 deficiency is quite rare, as many of the products vegans eat are fortified with it. Most B12 deficiencies have nothing to do with diet. Anyone can get easily tested for deficiencies in many direct to consumer lab testing offices throughout North America for under 50 dollars. If you aren't in control of your diet, then it follows that you probably aren't in control of your healh. In any case, the fact that veganism is mainstream means that it is accepted as normal and more available. With this mainstream acceptance by food companies comes the proliferation of B12 fortified products, which are everywhere. Viriditas (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, B12 deficiency from an inadequate diet is rare. It can take years to surface. (Being a pure vegan for years is rare as well. God help you if you stick to "all natural" vegan foods.) Unfortunately, the first clinical signs of B12 deficiency can be the first signs that irreversible neurological damage has begun.

I've moved up information about why B12 is of considerable concern to vegans. I notice the Vitamin D section also starts with a paragraph of vegan appologetics before mentioning the problem. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Summer PhD, please don't destabilize the article. It has been very carefully written and sourced. The sources for the B12 section are:

• Mangels, Reed; Messina, Virginia; and Messina, Mark. "Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin)," The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011, pp. 179–192.
• Mangels, Reed. "Vitamin B12 in the Vegan Diet", Vegetarian Resource Group.
• Herbert, Victor. "Vitamin B12: plant sources, requirements and assay", American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 48(3), September 1988, pp. 852–858.
• Norris, Jack and Messina, Virginia. Vegan for Life. Da Capo Press, 2011, p. 34.
• Halsted, James et al. "Serum Vitamin B12 Concentration in Dietary Deficiency", The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 8(3), 1960, pp. 374–376.
• "Vitamin B12", Office of Dietary Supplements, National Institutes of Health
• Norris, Jack. "Vitamin B12: Are you getting it?", Vegan Outreach, 26 July 2006.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

By "destabilize", you mean "change". I've asked for a cite for a quote. Currently, it's a direct quote of, um, no one. Granted, if I were trying to promote veganism, I'd love that quote too. But we have NO ONE talking.

You've restored a chart comparing several different products, with each product citing a different source. The products are compared based on several criteria. Who selected these products and the criteria? Someone here who wished to make a comparison between them. That's WP:OR. How about if we add another chart. I suggest we compare cheeseburgers, carrot and kale. We'll use the following criteria: protein, B12 and how many 12 year olds list them as their favorite foods. Deal?

The B12 section starts with a long aside about B12, not B12 and veganism. I cited the National Institutes of Health. That's WP:MEDRS compliant. Is Jack Norris? Why not start the section with an explanation of why the section is included? From the opening of the section, it would seem we should have a section on water, how it is produced and why it is important for humans. - SummerPhD (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The quote is attributed to the Associated Press at the start of the sentence, and the citation is at the end of the next sentence. Not sure I understand your point about the chart. If you mean comparing the milks, the table compares nutritional values for cow's milk, soy milk and almond milk, because that's the kind of thing vegetarian/vegan readers will want to know. I've collapsed it so that it's not so prominent on the page.

As for the B12 section, a lot of it is based on Reed Mangels et al, "Vitamin B12 (Cobalamin)", The Dietitian's Guide to Vegetarian Diets. Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2011. Mangels specializes in vegan and vegetarian diets. Her work is definitely MEDRS compliant.

Finally, the section does begin with an explanation of why it is there: "That vegans are unable in most cases, at least in the West, to obtain vitamin B12 from a plant-based diet without consuming fortified foods or supplements is often used as an argument against veganism." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)