Talk:Veganism

Critiques of Veganism
In the interests of fairness, shouldn't there be a section listing critiques and criticisms of the vegan diet from a health point of view at the very least? The only dissenting voice given in the article is from "Discrimination against vegans" and "Vegaphobia" which very strongly implies that only irrational and spiteful people would have any problem with this lifestyle. It just seems strange that nearly every other movement listed on this site follows a very standard formula of its history, its beliefs, and nearly always ends with a list of its criticisms written from a neutral point of view. Why should veganism be any different? 2603:3018:CD9:100:FC7B:A7D0:E465:4794 (talk) 03:19, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Phoenix


 * Agree with this - personally I have no issue with vegans or veganism in general but it is odd that this article is basically uncritical. Foonblace (talk) 08:50, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * From the lede: "Vitamin B12 supplementation is important because its deficiency can cause blood disorders and potentially irreversible neurological damage". In general, WP:CRITS are to be avoided. Bon courage (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Under the subheading “Philosophy, religion, or politics” WP:CRITS says:
 * “For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a ‘Criticism’ section or ‘Criticism of ...’ subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets.”
 * Since veganism is both a dietary choice and a philosophy, maybe this applies here. Marippy (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I heard what you are saying, but in this case, the criticism should be incorporated into the article. I don't trust people to list criticisms from a neutral point of view... I think having a criticisms section would invite trolls to vandalize the article, which is something we do NOT want. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having a criticism section would invite the trolls and be very bad. Historyday01 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I heard what you are saying, but in this case, the criticism should be incorporated into the article. I don't trust people to list criticisms from a neutral point of view... I think having a criticisms section would invite trolls to vandalize the article, which is something we do NOT want. Historyday01 (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. Having a criticism section would invite the trolls and be very bad. Historyday01 (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge
Should we merge this with Abolitionism (animal rights)? Countryboy603 (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Maybe link it but not completely merge 173.93.59.46 (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * No. Abolitionism and veganism are interrelated yet distinct philosophies. They complement each other. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This merge proposal is also discussed at Talk:Abolitionism_(animal_rights). I oppose this merge. There are a number of RS sources that have significant coverage of Abolitionism as a concept, which alone is justification for a separate article.Dialectric (talk) 13:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Prevalence by country: Germany, incorrect statement
...better educated (people who ended their formal education with Hauptschule graduation)...

In Germany, Hauptschule is not considered better educated. It's the lowest of the 3 schools kids attend starting 5th grade. 107.4.90.214 (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I deleted the part that goes into detail about education and East/West Germany. The study is too small to draw any of these conclusions. CarlFromVienna (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

"particularly in diet"
I know this has been discussed a hundred times but... this isn't a dictionary, this is an encyclopedia. It's ok for a dictionary to reflect how people misuse words, but an encyclopedia should reflect what the word actually means. As I dig deeper all I can see is that The Vegan Society never defined veganism as a diet. They always defined it as a philosophy. Countryboy603 (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It wasn't originally defined as a philosophy, vegan back then just meant "non-dairy vegetarian". Watson's first definition of veganism in 1946 was very simple, "the practice of living on fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, and other wholesome non-animal products". Veganism as a philosophy was first defined by Leslie Cross in 1951. It's both a diet and a philosophy. Over time it was turned into a philosophy. Most vegans today consider it a philosophy. Nothing wrong with that they can call it what they want, but we can't deny diet has been an important factor. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)