Talk:Veganism/Archive 12

Recent changes - text restored
Viriditas, rather than making threats, perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner. I have copied this discussion to the article talk page where discussion of improvements should take place. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC) [Since deleted by Viriditas].
 * I have just noticed that the text that I supported was that used in the version that was listed as a Good Article. Martin Hogbin (talk) perhaps you could tell us why you think your version of the article is better so that we can discuss improvement in a civil manner.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Your argument consists of pointing me to a version from nine years ago. Please remind me: why is this older version an improvement? Viriditas (talk) 11:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It was then listed as a Good Article and has since been delisted.


 * The current description seems to be extracted and synthesised from a number of sources. The former description was from an obviously independent (of editiors' opinions here) and authoritative source.  Why do you prefer the current description?  Martin Hogbin (talk)


 * Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_10 you are aware of the consensus on this issue and understand the problem with this revision. Based on Talk:Veganism/Archive_9 you have concerns about promoting the Vegan Society. It is impossible for me to believe that you cannot see what is wrong with the revision to the lede, which gives disproportionate WP:WEIGHT to the Vegan Society's view. In the context of your behavior on Green topics generally, it's becoming very hard to assume good faith, as several editors have pointed out. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the section you link to and all I can see is the opinions of various editors, including me. I cannot see what is wrong with using a quote from the vegan society compared with what seems to me just the opinion of editors here.  Although the current text does have references it seems to have been put together from snippets specially chosen by editors here to promote their personal opinions.  Ideally we need a single descrption from an independent, neutral, quality secondary source on the subject.


 * Regarding what you call my 'behavior on Green topics generally', this consists mainly of disagreeing with editors who are promoting a green political agenda. WP should be neutral. However individuals may feel about green issues WP is not the place to promote green politics.


 * When you say you find it hard to assume good faith on my part what exactly do you mean. Do you think some person or corporation is controlling me?  Do you think that I have some agenda other than maintaining a neutral, mainstream, view on WP?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin, I do not know whether someone is controlling you. It's a very weird thing for you to bring up, given that I've never made any such suggestion, and it seems like a straw man. I do think that any intelligent person who looks at your edit history here, on the gulf oil spill, or on other environmental issues, will conclude that you are WP:!HERE when it comes to these topics, and will see through your attempts to paint editors who express this concern as bullies. --Sammy1339 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your mention of WP:!HERE is very appropriate. I am here to build an encyclopdia; I am not here to write articles that will change opinions, promote views, make judgements on companies, or to champion the environment, animal rights, left wing politics, right wing politics, or anything else, however worthy you may think the cause may be, because that is not the purpose of an encyclopdia.  Please have a read of a good quality written encyclopdia to remind youself of the language, style, and content that is appropriate for an encyclopedia.
 * My complaint is not that you disagree with me, we have to accept that our opinions on some subjects differ and that they are likely to remain that way, neither is it that you express your opinion here, or that you challenge mine. My complaint is that you prosecute your argument by making personal attacks and accusations against me, for example criticising my 'behaviour' in a completely different article, suggesting that I am not editing in good faith.
 * I can assure you that I am here to create an encyclopdia which should contain all the world's knowledge. It is not intended to be a mouthpiece for personal opinions and philosophies, however sincerely held..
 * I am happy to carry on discussing the content of this article with you in a civil manner if you wish, as I am doing with two other editors below, but please leave the personal accusations out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the quote is UNDUE; the Vegan Society is only one of many vegan groups, and I think it makes sense to refer to scholarly rather than propagandistic definitions when possible. FourViolas (talk) 17:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is a fair point that a quote from the Vegan Society might be considered propagandistic (is there such a word?). Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Although, when I look at it, “a way of living that seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practicable, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing and any other purpose.” it seems a clear and neutral description. I would not criticise it as being too promotional. I have also noticed that this definition is quoted in one of the references cited in the lead.


 * What exactly is your objection to this wording? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Part of the Vegan Society's definition is already in the lead, in the third paragraph where we allude to the history. Because they created the term, it's appropriate to mention there how they moved from diet in 1944 to any animal use in 1951. It's not appropriate to prioritize their current definition, especially not in the first sentence, because now there are competing views. SarahSV (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to how due weight applies here. Although I see a long discussion about the idiosycratic way that 'commodity' is used in the lead, I see no discussion of the various different views of what 'veganism' means. If we are to give due weight, I would expect to see a discussion along the lines of 'X says 'veganism is ...', 'Y says veganism is ...' etc.  All I see is a editor-based synthesis of words and snippets from a collection of sources; essentially WP:OR.

I explained why I reverted Martin Hogbin; the Vegan Society quote is WP:Undue weight for the WP:Lead sentence. And there's also the fact that there are different types of vegans, as noted in the second paragraph of the lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are different kinds of vegans, which is precisely why diet alone should not be singled out in the lead sentence. The fact that diet is stated as the particular concern for veganism in general is WP:Undue weight for dietary veganism, to the exclusion of other forms of veganism. The other forms are already mentioned in the second paragraph. Zippy268 (talk) 12:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article's introduction is disputed
Please address the concerns on the talk page, as that is the appropriate action, rather than just removing the tag I have placed. Please see talk page section "particularly in diet". The fact that dietary veganism is being specifically mentioned in the first and second paragraphs, meanwhile other forms of veganism are excluded from the first paragraph, is by definition a biased POV. For ethical veganism, "particularly in diet" is simply not true. All the forms of veganism are already mentioned in the second paragraph. It's inappropriate to single out one of them, to the exclusion of others, in the first paragraph. Zippy268 (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is exactly the point that I am trying to make above. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Zippy268, I don't understand your concern. Dietary vegans abstain from the use of animal products in their diet; ethical vegans abstain from the use of animal products in their diet and in the rest of their lifestyle. It is therefore inclusive of both groups to say that veganism involves abstaining from animal products, "particularly in diet." Removing that qualifier would imply that no vegans are dietary vegans. FourViolas (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The concern is that the statement describing veganism in general as "particularly in diet" is false for an ethical vegan. "Particularly" means "so as to give special emphasis to". Ethical vegans do not give special emphasis to diet. They give the same emphasis to diet as they give to clothing and other purposes. I don't agree that removing that qualifier would imply that no vegans are dietary vegans because the 2nd paragraph directly and clearly addresses various different forms. A lead statement about veganism in general should have a value of true for all the different forms of veganism, in order for it to be a neutral statement.
 * Correct, and it is also supported by footnote 1.  would a simple Venn diagram be enough to show Zippy and Martin their error?  I have removed the unsupported tag. In other words, the sources make a distinction between a dietary vegan, a lifestyle or ethical vegan, and an environmental vegan, all of whom share the practice of consuming a vegan diet, but differ in their positions and approach to the use of animal products and rejection of the commodity status of animals, and the environmental impact of industrial farming. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not supported by footnote 1. Nothing in footnote 1 specifies that veganism, in general, is particularly in diet. Regardless of whether or not you agree, you should not be removing npov tags on articles while there is an ongoing dispute, simply because you personally disagree with them. Please see When to remove for the conditions of when it is appropriate to remove a tag. The conditions to remove the tag have not been met. Your removal of the tag is preventing others from joining in the discussion. Zippy268 (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is supported by footnote 1 and there is no evidence of any kind of NPOV dispute to deal with. Viriditas (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is not supported by footnote 1 and there is plenty of evidence of a NPOV dispute to deal with. Zippy268 (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This is an odd discussion. Veganism began over a concern with diet. For years diet was the only thing they campaigned about, and when they expanded to other areas, they made clear to the membership (early Vegan Society) that people should just do what they can, and not worry if they restrict it only to diet. Arguing otherwise shows no knowledge of the history of veganism or how it continues to be practiced.


 * Also, to argue that the first paragraph doesn't address other forms is demonstrably false. And to have Martin Hogbin agree with that point, when he has been arguing against the description of the other forms in the first paragraph, leaves me somewhat speechless. Do people read what they're arguing about, I wonder. SarahSV (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Veganism did not begin over a concern with diet, a vegan diet began over a concern with diet. Veganism began over a concern with not exploiting animals. Arguing otherwise is what shows no knowledge of the history of veganism. To argue that ethical veganism is abstinence from animal products, with a stipulation of "particularly in diet", is demonstrably false. Regardless of what you think about it or not, you should not be removing npov tags on articles simply because you personally disagree with them. Did you do this to try to prevent others from joining the discussion? Martin Hogbin has agreed above that the neutrality of the introduction is inappropriate. Zippy268 (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your argument is incoherent and tells me you haven't even read the article you are disputing. Competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Martin Hogbin understands my argument just fine. Therefore, it is not incoherent. Furthermore, accusations of an editor's incompetence, is the very definition of a "personal attack". This is another violation by you of No personal attacks as well as Talk page guidelines Zippy268 (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What argument? I will not comment on Hogbin's "understanding" because I do not want to die from laughing. Again, it's really interesting how you, Martin, and another editor showed up to edit war on the same day over the Vegan Society. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * What argument? The argument that Hogbin agreed with above. Are you not reading the discussion you are participating in? Please, don't make me start dying of laughter. It may be interesting to you that other people are mentioning the vegan society, albeit completely and totally irrelevant. Furthermore, discussion on a talk page does not constitute "edit war". It's becoming more and more obvious that you are not even interested in discussing the matter. Are you going to spout more personal attacks now? Because it seems you enjoy doing that...Zippy268 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The definitional sentence has to apply as much as possible to all forms of veganism.
 * If we were to leave out "particularly in diet", the definition would be false, because there are dietary vegans who do not abstain from using animal products (except in diet). Your claim that "veganism began over a concern with not exploiting animals" is contradicted by RS that support the existence of non-ethical dietary veganism.
 * Furthermore, even for ethical and environmental vegans, it's accurate to say "particularly in diet", because dietary choices are made three times a day—far more often than choices about leather, wool, and bicycle tires.

Zippy, although I sympathize with your feeling that the discussion has not stayed focused on content, at this point there's little to be accomplished by argument alone. Please either provide an exceptionally strong RS claiming that veganism has no particular connection to diet, or let the matter rest. FourViolas (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * "The definitional sentence has to apply as much as possible to all forms of veganism". I completely agree! This is the reason why this discussion is raised to begin with. It is currently is false, for ethical veganism, as defined by the The Vegan Society. Gary_L._Francione, an author quoted in the lead citation, also agrees that veganism is about much more than just diet. Ethical vegans do not give special importance to diet as the current lead sentence would suggest. With special being the key word here. Diet is obviously important to all forms of veganism. However, to say that all forms give it special importance, is false because in ethical veganism it is not given special importance. Clothing, toiletries, etc. are all equally important with regards to ethical veganism. I don't agree that it's accurate to say the statement is also accurate for ethical vegans because, like you said, food is used only 3 times a day. Meanwhile, all the other considerations like toiletries, clothing, etc. are considered far more than 3 times a day. Clothing is worn 24/7 perhaps. Teeth are brushed 3 times a day alone. Hair is shampooed once or twice a day. Deodorant is worn once a day. If one only considers teeth, hair and deodorant, that is 3 or perhaps 6 times alone right there.


 * However, if people are adamant on not removing the particularity in diet qualifier. I would be willing to compromise and add additional statements. For example, "particularity in diet, clothing and toiletries". Or something to that effect. I believe, like you, that it is important that the lead general definition be true for all forms of veganism. Because obviously, a definition of veganism in general must apply to all form of veganism. Special emphasis is given to diet with regards to dietary veganism and perhaps environmental veganism, but not for ethical veganism. There has to be a way to word it so that it has a truth value of true for all forms of veganism. Zippy268 (talk) 20:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I really see where you're coming from—ethical vegans do not necessarily prioritize vegan diets over other consumer choices—but I can't think of a better way to put it. Since the statement is trying to define several practices at once, it has to be a little fuzzy; I read it as saying, "Veganism in general is more or less 'abstaining from animal products', and it's certainly (especially, particularly) abstaining from them in diet, as well as rejecting animal commodification etc." This feels like a good compromise between the various forms of veganism; if anything, it gives more weight to ethical veganism, because dietary and environmental vegans don't necessarily "reject animal commodification (but this imbalance is in turn justified by the WEIGHT of RS).
 * So I understand your concern, but I don't think it's a serious problem, and I'm not clever enough to think of anything better. If you can, please propose alternate wording. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making an effort to understand what I'm saying. I would personally have no problem with a type of description that indicates that diet is merely common to all vegans, because that is true. I will put together some alternate wording proposals and present them for review. Zippy268 (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

A NPOV tag on this article is appropriate
There is clearly a dispute regarding neutrality going on over the introduction, by more than one editor. Regardless of one's personal opinion on the matter, an NPOV tag is warranted to facilitate others joining in the discussion. The conditions to remove the tag have not been met, yet the tag is being removed. Please explain why you are removing the tag in an inappropriate manner.

Please see Tagging_pages_for_problems for more information. It specifies that "In any NPOV dispute, there will usually be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some who disagree. In general, you should not remove the POV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved or—according to the rules for this specific template—when the discussion has stopped for a significant length of time." Zippy268 (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The addition of the tag isn't valid, because the conditions to remove it can't be met. You're asking us to pretend that there aren't degrees of veganism, and to accept that "particularly in diet" is false. But there are degrees, even if ethical vegans don't like that, and vegans do focus on diet, ethical vegans included. SarahSV (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The addition of the tag is valid because the article's first sentence is in dispute. I am not asking anyone to pretend there aren't degrees of veganism. The 2nd paragraph clearly states there are. I do not disagree, in any way, with the 2nd paragraph. The fact that this is even being discussed and disputed, is proof that a tag is warranted. Zippy268 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please review circular reasoning. Viriditas (talk) 00:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am familiar with what circular reasoning is. What is relevant here is the fact that the article's neutrality is being disputed. Therefore, a tag is warranted. This is not circular reasoning. If you disagree with that, please explain why. Zippy268 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Zippy, your "dispute" has been addressed by multiple parties and has been found to be without merit. Please go and find something else to do with your free time now. Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * You and another person does not constitute a consensus. You and one other person also don't have the authority to decide what is "without merit" by yourselves. This is especially the case when multiple parties believe that it does have merit. No, I will not find something else to do with my free time now. Although, that is a clever attempt, or perhaps not so clever attempt, to try to silence discussion on the matter. Why do you want to silence discussion of the matter? Telling someone to just go away, is not the proper way to have a discussion. It's become apparent to me that you are not even interested in discussing it. Hence the comment for me to just go away...Zippy268 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It is obvious to the world looking at veganism from the outside in, that there is disagreement between those within veganism who take a purist view of what it is to be "vegan" and those who have a less purist take - and our sources of course reflect that. This is essentially an in-universe dispute which Wikipedia should not engage in as it has no stance on such disputes. Wikipedia does not operate by vote count, but within the WP:PAGs, and to do so we must characterize this dispute rather than make Wikipedia take sides. The tag has no merit. Alexbrn (talk) 08:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Alex, there are two disputes going on here, one essentially within veganism and one about the article being to promotional/supportive of veganism. Personally I do not like tags and think it is always better to resolve disputes by civil discussions between editors.
 * If you look at the section above, you will seethat I have proposed a completely neutral way of describing veganism that is as in accordance in WP policy. I have suggested that, in the lead, we use a definition from a good quality, authoritative, secondary source.  Dictionaries are one possibility but one with a little more detail would be better.  In the 2007 version of this article, which was listed as a GA, we had definition from the British Vegan Society:


 * '[T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals'.


 * That version also contained links to three other vegan societies, which also might be used. At present, the article uses a defintion using the vegan language 'the commodity status of animals' and a editor-written definition based on a synthesis of selected sources. Just hover over some of the refs in the lead and you will see what I mean.


 * Whenever a new editor, who wants to change things, comes along they are told that the matter is settled and they are being disruptive and they are often subjected to personal attacks and threats.


 * I have no strongly held views on veganism but I do have strong views on the neutrality of WP. This article is not neutral. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:IDHT. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review WP:IDHT that seems really rude -- why don't you explain what you mean or else don't chime in like that? SageRad (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

...If this dispute is over whether veganism began with dietary concerns or with ethical concerns, then surely there are reliable sources on the history of veganism that could be cited to prove either case. This is an easy fix. Just line up the sources and look at what they say.

When I saw that this lede was disputed as biased, I thought you meant the fourth paragraph, which includes support for veganism but none of the criticism of veganism. I would be surprised if "good for all stages of the life cycle," which includes newborns, was the standard medical view of veganism. There's your neutrality issue. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Having reviewed this talk page and the article's recent edit history, i think it's clear that the NPOV tag is warranted here. That's what the tag is for -- to bring attention to the fact that there is serious discussion relating to whether the article is really reflecting a neutral point of view, and that is clearly the case here. There is valid discussion on both sides of the issue, and it takes time to work that out. In the meantime, a tag reflects the ongoing discussion. I will also mention that i see some unfriendly behaviors in the above talk page dialogues that trouble me, and seems to be holding up the discussion from being more productive by peppering in personal attacks and rhetorical flourishes instead of sticking to discussing the content based on policies and guidelines. This discussion would go more smoothly if people could stick to the content and be civil to each other, and take each other's concerns seriously with good faith. SageRad (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No responses yet to this. Anyway... let's keep the tag and discuss the content. SageRad (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Academic sources and "Property status"
I don't think dictionaries or vegan groups are the way to go here. Per WP:Academic, scholarly sources are best when there's confusion. Here are a bunch of tertiary sources:

From :

From the entry on vegetarianism and veganism in

From

From the entry on veganism in

From "Vegetarianism and Veganism, Health Implications" in

From

That's a wide range of different perspectives on different aspects of veganism, and I think it shows the current definition (and lede in general) is just fine. You're right that the "commodity" language only comes up in animal ethics literature, but almost all sources try to describe the associated philosophy in the definition, and it makes sense to use philosophers' words to describe the philosophy part. FourViolas (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thinking back on the animal ethics course I took last semester, I personally think "commodity status" is a nice way of putting it, but even within animal ethics it's not the standard language. There are lots of distinct terms for what philosophers do want animals to have: moral status, moral considerability, freedom from being treated as a mere means, legal personhood, "equitable self-ownership", etc. However, there is a more or less standard phrase for what most animal ethicists do not want animals to continue to have: property status, at least in its current form. See for example:


 * Steven Wise, Animal Thing to Animal Person--Thoughts on Time, Place, and Theories
 * Gary L. Francione, Animals--Property or Persons?
 * Christine M. Korsgaard, Kantian Ethics, Animals, and the Law
 * David Favre, Equitable Self-Ownership for Animals
 * Thomas G. Kelch, Toward a Non-Property Status for Animals
 * Robert Garner, Political Science and Animal Studies
 * Those are some of the biggest names in animal ethics, people who disagree with each other about a lot of things, all clearly saying that they think animals' current property status is one of the most fundamental problems they want to solve. I think it would be WP:DUE, as well as perhaps addressing Martin's concerns about "emotive vegan rhetoric", since it's a plain fact that legal traditions derived from Roman law (ie, almost all the Western ones) divide the world into legal persons and their legal property, and animals are not currently legal persons. FourViolas (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These look like RS to me, but they do not cover a wide range. They're all either new age or pro-vegetarian or against animal cruelty.  So while they're certainly reliable enough, we should not assume them to be a cross-section of mainstream views.  I'd treat them like newspapers that all have the same political bent.  It would be even more solid to show newspapers with the opposite bent that say the same thing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The boxed sources are a wide range: some pro-veganism (New Age, Animal Rights) and some very much "with the opposite bent" (Social Deviance, Cults & Sects). All those sources agree veganism is about eliminating animal products, because of some philosophical objection to animal exploitation.


 * Then in order to decide how to describe that philosophical objection, I drew up the bulleted sources. The authors are mainstream animal ethicists (the first three are among the superstars of the field), and they agree that animals' status as "property" is a big part (probably the biggest) of the supposed problems vegans worry about. FourViolas (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The point made by Darkfrog24 is exactly the same as I have been making. Even mainstrean animal ethicist are not neutral sources.


 * Also note the wording of the sources that are not pro-vegan, for example [my bold], 'Vegans are strict vegetarians who, in addition to not eating eat, also avoid all animal products including dairy, eggs, and animal by-products for food, clothing, and other purposes…. vegetarians [and vegans] say they avoid meat and animal products as a way to boycott cruel practices towards animals'. This makes clear that we are stating the views of vegans, which is fine,  rather than stating an undisputed fact.  If you remember, that was all I wanted to do a while back, simply to make clear that the the wording used was vegan opinion.  See this revert of my change. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Particularly in Diet
I would like to see a source for the specification that veganism is abstinence from using animal products "particularly in diet". The cite on that sentence does not specify that. Zippy268 (talk) 05:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Searches for veganism on Google scholar bring up a lot of papers that treat veganism specifically as a diet. The following papers which treat it as an ideology also support the qualifier "particularly in diet":. --Sammy1339 (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * A lot of people who write scholarly papers on veganism, aren't even vegan themselves. I would like to know what page of the material you cited specifies the definition as "particularly diet" and why you think these authors have authority over the definition of veganism to begin with. I can provide numerous sources that specify that it is not particular to diet and that diet is only one part of a much bigger picture. Zippy268 (talk) 06:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you haven't read the article you are edit warring on. Why in the world would someone have to be a vegan to write a paper about it?  That's a fallacious argument. Do you deny the distinction between dietary, ethical, and environmental veganism? The authors have authority over the definition because that's how we write encyclopedia articles—based solely on reliable sources.  You say you've been editing Wikipedia for a decade but it sounds like you've been editing for ten minutes. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks. You are in violation No personal attacks as well as Talk page guidelines again...in addition to spewing insults at me on my talk page, which is also a violation of both of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I do not agree with Zippy on article content but I do agree with No personal attacks. Please let us stick to discussing content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These are two highly cited papers on veganism as a cultural movement. Actually look at them and you will see the statement supported right in the beginning of each. For example, in the 2nd one by Cherry, the third sentence after the abstract is "The vegan movement is a good example: vegans are strict vegetarians who, in addition to not eating meat, fish, or fowl, also do not consume any animal products such as dairy and eggs. Since veganism focuses on eliminating animal products from people’s diets and lifestyles, veganism is often considered as only one goal or tactic of the animal rights movement (Munro, 2005)." --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your idea that they are highly cited sources is your personal opinion. Your quote also does not specify that it is particular in diet. The proper authority for the definition of the term veganism is the Vegan Society as they are the ones who coined the term to begin with. They specifically do not specify that it is particular to diet because it was and is not intended to be particularly in diet. Please see below for the correct description and definition.


 * "Although the vegan diet was defined early on it was as late as 1949 before Leslie J Cross pointed out that the society lacked a definition of veganism and he suggested “[t]he principle of the emancipation of animals from exploitation by man”. This is later clarified as “to seek an end to the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection, and by all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man”.


 * ''"When the society became a registered charity in 1979, the Memorandum and Articles of Association updated this definition of “veganism”" as:


 * "[…] a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."


 * There is no reason why diet should be singled out in the lead statement when veganism is not particular to diet to begin with. In fact, it's a misleading statement. Diet is no more important than any other aspect of veganism according to the people who invented the word to begin with. Veganism is not particularly in diet anymore than it is particularly in clothing or particularly in toiletries, or any other use of animal products. Zippy268 (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there are many good reasons. See the thread directly above this one.  I assume it's just a coincidence that you, Tha1uw4nt, and Martin Hogbin are all edit warring just within the last 24 hours over the Vegan Society definition? To me it appears to be a coordinated effort to disrupt this article. Viriditas (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That is correct. It is a coincidence that these other people are discussing this. However, at the same time, no it's not a coincidence because the definition of veganism is not particular to diet. No, those are not good reasons above. And the idea that a disagreement between authors constitutes a "disruption", is nonsensical. The idea that this constitutes "edit warring" is also nonsensical. Zippy268 (talk) 07:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The lead of this article is biased towards diet. Zippy268 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

A good quality independent authoritative source
Might I suggest that this dispute could be resolved by finding some authoritative independent (neither pro nor anti veganisn) sources which define the meaning of the word. At present we have a description based mainly on the opinions of editors here and supported by a synthesis of exerpts from selected sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Please remember the meaning we give in this article should not be the meaning that editors here think it ought to be (even if they have done extensive private research on the subject) but the generally inderstood meaning of the term.

My dictionary (Collins 1994) says for 'Vegan', 'A person who refrains from using any animal product whatever for food, clothing, or any purpose'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I concur with all of of the above. Zippy268 (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Mirriam Webster online says for 'Vegan', 'a person who does not eat any food that comes from animals and who often also does not use animal products (such as leather)', and also, ' a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also : one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)'

(2) Oxford Dictionaries online says, 'A person who does not eat or use animal products'.

(3) Urban Dictionary, ' Someone who slaughters and kills fruits, and vegetables' (-; Martin Hogbin (talk)

Comment The Oxford English Dictionary offers the following definitions:
 * (4) Veganism – The beliefs or practice of vegans; abstention from or avoidance of all food or other products of animal origin.
 * (5) Vegan – A person who abstains from all food of animal origin and avoids the use of animal products in other forms.

American Vegan Association
VEGANS (pronounced VEE-guns) Live on products of the plant kingdom. Veganism is compassion in action. It is a philosophy, diet, and lifestyle.

Veganism is an advanced way of living in accordance with Reverence for Life, recognizing the rights of all living creatures, and extending to them the compassion, kindness, and justice exemplified in the Golden Rule.

Vegans eat solely from the plant kingdom: vegetables, fruits, legumes, grains, nuts and seeds. Vegans express nonviolence towards animals and the Earth. AVS promotes good health practices and harmonious living.

Vegans exclude flesh, fish, fowl, dairy products (animal milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, etc.), eggs, honey, animal gelatin, and all other foods of animal origin. 14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Veganism also excludes animal products such as leather, wool, fur, and silk in clothing, upholstery, etc. Vegans usually make efforts to avoid the less-than-obvious animal oils, secretions, etc., in many products such as soaps, cosmetics, toiletries, household goods and other common commodities.14:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Danish Vegan Society
A vegan does not eat meat, poultry, fish, milk products, egg or other animal products - out of concern for people, animals, and the environment.

Vegan society of New Zealand (from 2006)
"A Vegan is a person who knowingly chooses not to consume, use or wear any products produced from animals or contains animal by-products, and avoids products tested on animals." Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I think we can certainly come up with something better than the current phrasing. In truth I don't really know what "an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals" actually means. Would that preclude going out and buying a dog, for example? All the definitions above stipulate that vegans abstain from/refrain from/do not eat food of animal origin and that they refrain from using/often do not use/avoid products of animal origin. Betty Logan (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The 'commodity status' is a bit of emotive vegan rhetoric which suggests that live animals are currently treated in exactly the same way as commodities such as copper or pork bellies. This is obiously wrong. I am told that the word 'commodity' is being used in a special way here but, if that is so, it is misleading to use it in a different way from the way that it is normally used without explanation.


 * It would be nice to find some sources that are not dictionaries and which may have a little more detail but in is not up to us here to try to create our own interpratation from selected academic (mainly animal activist) sources. Hover over the refs in the lead and you will see what I mean.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This strange idea was thoroughly put to bed in Talk:Veganism/Archive_10. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My argument that WP should use normal language rather than activist jargon was not addressed at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That archive has non-activist sources including the UN and an academic book that make the completely and utterly non-controversial and obvious statement that animals are commodities. You have provided no evidence that this is "activist jargon". --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to provide evidence that the word 'commodity' is commonly used to describe the way that humans (in general) treat animals (in general) if you want to use this terminology in WP. You have failed to do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would recommend anyone who has not been following this page to read Talk:Veganism/Archive_10. 'Commodity status' may well be how vegans describe the situation of animals but it is not how the rest of the world do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone here is arguing against the view that eating or using animal products treats animals as "commodities". The problem is that the view of animals as "commodities" embraces far more than what this article goes into. Is pet-owning not treating an animal as a commodity? And yet I know a pet-owning vegan. What about horse-riding or service animals? If a vegan were buried alive in an avalanche would they be against the use of sniffer dogs to locate them? It seems to me there are a lot of issues where animals are treated a commodities but veganism doesn't adopt a stance on. I really think the lead would benefit from more common language. Betty Logan (talk) 19:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pet-selling is the relevant issue, per the definition of commodities. This is consistent with the interpretations of Watson, Francione, and others, and I think the current lede was developed as a compromise between the abolitionist view that veganism is based on the idea that animals should not be articles of trade, and other views, such as that veganism is just a diet. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Speaking in terms of the commodification of animals is quite common, as the sources show. Having a companion animal doesn't involve treating the animal as a commodity, but buying or selling animals would. Ethical vegans may live with rescue animals, but are much less likely to have purchased one. They are split on horse-riding. They might ride horses if a relationship had developed with the horse whereby the human believed no harm was being done, and the horse lived in a good environment. Other ethical vegans argue against this. And yes, there are issues that are hard to resolve, because animal use is ubiquitous. SarahSV (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Speaking in terms of the commodification of animals is quite common in vegan sources but it is hardly ever heard in general sources. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Betty, I am arguing against the use of 'commodity status' for any animals because the it is unclear what the phrase means. At one extreme 'commodity status' just means that they can be bought and sold (and even this is not true for all animals). Legal ownership of animals surely is not the crux of vegan philosophy.  If a person buys a country estate legally they own all the game animals on it but the owner often chooses to leave them completely alone.  Do vegans object to just the fact that the animals are legally owned? Surely the vegan objection is to hunting or killing them.  At the other extreme 'commodity status' means that the owners can do entirely with them as they wish without regard to the animals' feelings or welfare.  Almost all countries have laws against what can and cannot be done with animals.  I think that it is this meaning that some vegan sources are trying to project, even though it is patently false. We should explain vegan philosophy in language that is clear and accessible to everyone? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, ethical vegans object to animals being property. Martin, please do some reading about these issues. It isn't reasonable to be active on a talk for a long time and not know anything about the topic, so that other people repeatedly have to explain the basics. There was a similiar situation where you seemed to argue that cows aren't kept pregnant to obtain milk. SarahSV (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The basics are that we are writing an encyclopedia article about veganism, which in in general does not object simply to the legal ownership of animals, even if some vegans do. So to use a term that applies only to some vegans as an overall description of veganism in the lead is wrong. The basics are that in Wikipedia we do not read primary sources and state our opinions on them in article pages, for matters of opinion we look for quality authoritative secondary sources. Sources which clearly say, 'veganism is...'.  I you want to state in the body somewher that some ethical vegans object to the principle of animal ownership that is fine but it is not the defining feature of veganism.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ethical vegans object to the property status of animals; it very much is a defining feature. The second paragraph explains that not all vegans are ethical vegans. There are lots of secondary sources in the article and others you could consult. See footnote 1 and ref 9 as a start. SarahSV (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See below, we are talking about the lead which is about veganism in general. The section about ethical veganism is another matter. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Break
Martin, here is a NYT article written by a philosopher and ethical vegan. It explains what ethical veganism is in simple language. For example:

"People who are ethical vegans believe that differences in intelligence between human and non-human animals have no moral significance whatsoever. The fact that my cat can’t appreciate Schubert’s late symphonies and can’t perform syllogistic logic does not mean that I am entitled to use him as an organic toy, as if I were somehow not only morally superior to him but virtually entitled to treat him as a commodity with minuscule market value."

SarahSV (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We are discussing how to define veganism, as a whole, in the article lead. This quote is not about vegans in general but about ethical vegans.  It does not attempt to define even ethical veganism but simply gives an example of one specific ethical vegan opinion.   The source would support a statement about one aspect of ethical veganism in an appropriate part of the body of this article, in fact I think it should be used, but it is not suitable for an overall definition of veganism in the lead.  Combining it with other sources by editors here to generate a combined overall definition is synthesis which is not allowed.  Let us find a source which actually answers the question we want answered.  Actually we already have one but some here do not like it. If we cannot find a better (acceptable to more people) one we must use the only one that we have. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, the fact that the author is an ethical vegan means that we should not use his/her language which is, pretty well by definition, NPOV but state the principle in our own neutral language. For example I would be perfectly happy to say in the 'Ethical veganism' section:
 * (Some) ethical vegans believe that differences in intelligence between human and non-human animals have no moral significance whatsoever and object to what they describe as the treatment of pets by humans as organic toys or even commodities. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vegans are, obviously, the best sources to use to define what they do, but regardless, we use a mixture of vegan and non-vegan sources, and they all define these terms in similar ways, because there isn't any disagreement about the basics. There is disagreement about how far it ought to extend (horseriding, honey?), and there are ethical vegans who don't like that dietary vegans regard themselves as vegans, but that these groups do in fact exist, and that ethical vegans oppose the property status of animals, is not in dispute. SarahSV (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Vegan sources are fine but we should not use their language or repeat their statements in Wikipedia's voice because what they say expresses a vegan view of the world. This is the fundamental Wikipedia principle of NPOV.  Vegan sources are free to state their opinions as forcefully and in whatever language they like, but we do not repeat their opinion as fact or use special meanings of words that are used by the sources to try to make a point.  Of course we are free to say what they say and believe, but not in Wikipedia's voice.  We have to preface their minority opinion with 'Vegans believe that...', or 'Vegans say that...', we cannot repeat their opinion as fact becuase not everyone agrees with them, in fact most people disagree with them.  My propose addition to the 'Ethical veganism' above shows how extreme or minority views should be written in WP.  This applies equally to the other end of the spectrum, we cannot say, 'It is fine to hunt animals for sport', but we can say 'Hunt supporters say that it is fine to hunt animals for sport'.  The first is opinion; the second is fact. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand that there is a whole range of veganism ranging from the extreme 'animals are human' view expressed above to those who think that it is OK to eat meat in some circumstances and, of course, we should cover that range in the article but the definition of veganism in the lead should be a general statement covering the majority of vegan belief not just a small faction. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you even understand what you have just written as it contradicts your entire argument. I'm sorry, but competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please discuss content and refrain from attacking me. If you do not understand what I mean just ask. I am always happy to explain. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems POV pushy
This edit seems problematic to me as the source used is not WP:MEDRS and it's making human biomedical claims. Secondly, this link as written -- medical evidence -- in other words a link to evidence-based medicine but represented as the text "medical evidence" seems POV pushy to me, as the branded label of "evidence-based medicine" and Dr Gorski's website which is linked as source (and is i think the main source of this term) is a sort of epistemological point of view pushing thing... this edit just doesn't sit right with me. Sure, we do not want unsupported claims made in Wikivoice, but this section is speaking of the history of the idea of veganism, and not endorsing those claims in Wikivoice. It's stating them as attributed claims. The rebuttal is stating the contrary in Wikivoice and seems like it would need to be WP:MEDRS for that reason. SageRad (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're wrong about this being historical, it's about contemporary claims for diet programmes which are being sold with fringe claims - today. Since WP:FRINGE applies, SBM is an excellent source (to counter the non-MEDRS claims of Greger and the other celebrity diet doctors, which I assume you are equally concerned about?). Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * It is historical. It's in a history of veganism. As for the whole discussion of WP:FRINGE and why Dr Gorski is a great source for everything, i think i'll sit this one out. Saying "Person X says Z cures A, B, and C" is different from saying "Z cures A, B, and C" -- that's the essence of my objection here. Anyway, looks like it's been sorted out, thankfully. SageRad (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Vegan health claims and NPOV
In this edit you inserted a blog post questioning the claims of some vegan health advocates, citing WP:PSCI. While I don't have sympathy for attempts to spin the issue and present veganism as a miracle cure, I think there are a couple problems with your version. First of all, the claims made by Campbell, Greger, and others are not "pseudoscience", they are supported by legitimate medical research. I am not sure whether they are the predominant views in the field or not - the situation seems complicated and may very from one claim to another. But, for example, the claim that a typical vegan diet, compared to a standard American diet, prevents coronary heart disease is uncontroversial and can be supported. Secondly, the source you used to characterize the claims as "extravagant" is a blog which is certainly not MEDRS (or even regular RS) compliant. Can we get better sourcing for this issue? --Sammy1339 (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See above section of this talk page, as i've also questioned this edit on similar grounds. SageRad (talk) 14:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't be mislead by the wikilink WP:PSCI; that bit of the policy applies to any notion outside the mainstream (not just pseudoscience), and that is what we've got here. Per WP:PARITY we have some leeway in what kind of source we use to counter fringe views, and SBM (not really just a blog) is an excellent source for this. If there is better sourcing, of course let's go for it - but the idea that veganism cannot "reverse cancer" is not really an extraordinary claim, and so does not need a strong source. Alexbrn (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article about Michael Greger features similar wording and the same source introduced by Alexbrn, so if you're to challenge that, please do it there too. --Rose (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Reading the source, though, it has more to do with details of Greger's videos than these broad claims. I'll soften the wording a bit (removing the "reverse" part, which might actually be controversial) and remove this blog post - I believe it's a bit out of place here. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really solve it, as "reversal" is one of the claims made: so now we're not accurate. I've pinged WP:FT/N for assistance with this fringe issue. If you remove the SBM source (not really a blog since it has editorial oversight) for being non-WP:MEDRS, we should certainly remove the vegan claims sourced to non-MEDRS too. As I said, this is a circumstance where WP:PARITY applies. Alexbrn (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OR is a problem here. The blog is contesting information from a video by Greger, but as written it implies that it applies to all of the sources' claims. Something like "several of these claims have been contested" would be closer to verifiable. FourViolas (talk) 15:40, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is covered in more detail in a section below on "health effects", which is based on mainstream RSes. I don't see that it's inaccurate to simply not give any air to some of the speculative claims in the "history" section. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine too. Be if we mention off-the-wall health claims, it needs to plain what they are. Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

You removed "...a low-fat, plant-based diet might prevent coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers" calling this a fringe claim. I'm no expert, but I actually think this is can be supported by mainstream medical sources. It might be necessary to specify "type II diabetes" and "compared to typical Western diets" or something similar, but (correct me if I'm wrong) I think this more modest claim is far from fringe. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prevent" is fringe (though some types of plant-rich, lower-fat diets might reduce cancer risk, the evidence for the vegan diet per se is patchier). In any case, if we're going to flag up health claims we need WP:MEDRS - I thought that was the way we're going. I actually think this is a bad way to go. What we should be doing is properly outlining what these guys claim, and then framing then as the over-reaches they are. That would be more neutral. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have medical sources in the article that support all of it. The part that you removed, about vegan diets curing (reversing) certain diseases can be supported in a similar manner too but that section of the article isn't even about health. It was about the history of veganism and what the physicians proposed. --Rose (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm less concerned when there is an obvious historical context, but when we're giving air to contemporary views of people selling fringe diets books & programmes today, we really need to be careful to ensure it's clear what the neutral position on these things are. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, I might be confused about this: Does "prevent" typically mean "reduce the risk of" or "eliminate the risk of"? If the latter, we should probably change it to "protect against" which more accurately summarizes what they actually said. I agree with Rose that the details already appear later in the article and don't need to be hashed out here (though maybe a note would be helpful) and disagree that we should include and evaluate every speculative hypothesis they proposed - that would take up too much space, and send us far off-topic. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Prevent means to keep from happening. And is is what some of these guys imply (I see the latest fad book is entitled "How Not to Die"!) I agree going into detail would take up too much space, which is why something like a single sentence from SBM is appropriate. But we can't leave fringe claims floating around unqualified: that is policy. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you saying it's a fringe claim that a vegan diet offers protection against coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers? SarahSV (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You seem to be focusing on certain other views on this subject, expressed by just one of the people mentioned in this passage. I have to agree with User:FourViolas that it's OR to apply a (questionable) source which criticizes a video by Michael Greger to call into question the entirety of this passage. If you're going to say that the passage is WP:FRINGE, you ought to focus on the content of what it says, not the other opinions of the physicians it cites. I don't see that the statement "...a low-fat, plant-based diet might prevent coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers" is fringe - except possibly because of confusion involved in construing "prevent" as meaning "prevent with certainty", which is clearly not intended. --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The fringe claims are around the words "prevent" and "reverse" which we had (and Greger for one claims "reverse" I believe). The SBM source is a lot less questionable than some of those we've been using to say veganism can reverse cancer! If we're going to invoke the ideas of certain people, we need to be accurate about the views we attribute to them; if those views are fringey, we need to make sure that fringeiness is evident to the reader; it's not a complicated thing. Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are zero fringe claims or theories but the book sources used to back up the parts that said the doctors proposed a vegan diet for particular benefits aren't really accessible so I can't verify them to speak of the language used by the doctors. I could argue with you about whether or not we can interpret "How Not to Die" as "how to significantly reduce your risk of dying prematurely" but Wikipedia isn't about our opinions. It's about summarizing and reflecting what's already out there. --Rose (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Health benefits section already makes it clear and even in its current state actually supports the part about plant-based diets preventing certain diseases, although it doesn't have to, as the point the Becoming mainstream section tried to make was simply that certain physicians were outspoken about these and other benefits. --Rose (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So do you agree that "...a low-fat, plant-based diet might protect against coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers" is not fringe? --Sammy1339 (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Offers protection against and prevents mean the same here, and that is not a fringe claim. It's solidly supported by MEDRS sources. And in this section it is simply an historical statement about when and how these ideas emerged. SarahSV (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Prevent" has connotations of ... well, "prevention", so it would be better to be more precise. Anyway what we've got ("...a low-fat, plant-based diet might protect against coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers") is fine as a general and non-fringey statement. The problem is, it isn't what these guys argue. Ornish, for one, argues that his diet reverses heart disease. Alexbrn (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The other point, which I have raised before, is it is not a generally accepted medical fact that a vegan diet is more healthy overall than a non-vegan diet. This would be quite a serious claim to make and, as such, it would require a very good quality sources.  I have seen no source which says this.  It is not neutral, therefore, to give in the lead, which should be a summary of the subject as a whole, only the health benefits of veganism.
 * We should also point out, somewhere in the article, the significant risks of a vegan diet in practice, where it might not be well planned and supplemented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we already cover the risks of a vegan diet; I'm not sure they're that "significant". However, I do think statements about any diet that it can "protect against serious disease X" are pretty meaningless unless some comparison is given: compared to a diet of McDonalds burgers, well yeah; compared to a vegetarian diet, not so much. The problem as I see it at the moment is that the article constructs a kind of history which implies that scientists have been gradually validating the vegan diet by discovering it is full of rainbows and unicorns. In fact what is happening in the case of this particular content being discussed is that a number of people have bought into the multi-biliion dollar diet industry by making extravagant and unsupported claims about their (sometimes vegan-based) diets - and Wikipedia is being a bit too credulous in relaying their views as part of a narrative. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Even the stronger claims are not exactly fringe. This MEDRS-compliant source seems to lend some credence to the idea that plant-based diets might help to reverse or manage heart disease and diabetes, although making clear this has not been well-established. I don't see it's necessary to treat this as if it were pseudoscientific bollocks - merely stating that these ideas were proposed, or even more modestly, omitting them from mention entirely - does not seem terribly misleading to me. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not WP:MEDRS. Case Reports are about as far from high quality as one can get - see WP:MEDASSESS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The current health section doesn't look to bad to me. It touches on both the both the benefits and detriments found in the literature on the subject.  The simplest way to avoid the fringe claims made by particular proponents in the history section that don't coincide with the current evidence is just to word it so there are no claims being made.  You could just mention the proponents, maybe stay vague with wording like "health benefits", or something.  Simply just don't make specific health claims in the history section and there should be no issues I'd think. Capeo (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree the Health section is okay; we've just got some effectiveness claims effectively (hah!) being made elsewhere. Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not just a case study: "The goal of this article is to review the evidence supporting plant-based diets and to provide a guideline for presenting them to patients. We start with a case study and conclude with a review of the literature." Although I'm not actually 100% sure about my MEDRS claim, it does provide an indication that these are not fringe ideas. --Sammy1339 (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to be a partial survey hung off a case report, and not very good at that. The journal has no impact.. PUBMED classifies it as a Case Report but in any event, appearing in a journal most certainly does not mean something is not fringe. We have entire journals dedicated to the fringeist topics! Alexbrn (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but you also characterized this as "misleading bunkum" and wrote in the article that these speculations are "out of alignment with the known medical evidence". Can that be supported?
 * Mind, I'm not endorsing the "reversal" claims as true. But it seems to me that these are open questions, which were only ever presented as speculation, and that these speculations are scientifically plausible, not WP:FRINGE. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the reversal claims are out-of-alignment with medical evidence, and the claim that going on a vegan diet can "reverse" your cancer is dangerous quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The cancer claim probably - I'm not sure if that claim was even made, though, as I haven't looked in the sources. But what makes you say that the claim that a plant-based diet can reverse heart disease is out-of-alignment with evidence? I can provide a good source showing that diet can reverse atherosclerosis, and good sources showing that plant-based diets reduce indicators of heart disease. Although there are a number of studies, I think there's no MEDRS-compliant review article that puts the two together - but unproven and fringe are not synonyms. This idea is scientifically plausible, not pseudoscience as you have indicated. --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no good evidence. I agree that unproven does not equate to fringe (in health), but claiming that something is so, when in fact it is unproven (in health) is fringe; selling stuff on that basis is quackery. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's not what happened - it was presented as opinion/speculation via the terms argued and proposed. Anyway, I think FourViolas' comment below sums up the present situation, except that I don't see a reason not to restore the modest claim that these people proposed that plant-based diets could protect against X,Y,Z. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear: the original text was "They proposed that a low-fat, plant-based diet would prevent, and might reverse, coronary heart disease, diabetes and certain cancers". [my bold]. These are not modest claims, they are about the biggest possible claims one can make about the effects of diet. We can't let this hang in the air without mainstream context. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The "modest" claim I was referring to was the one in which that bold portion is changed to "could protect against" - sorry if that wasn't clear in my previous comment. Is that claim objectionable to you? --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Only insofar as it's economical with the truth of what some of these people are claiming. Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It's probably not accurate to ascribe the stronger claims to all or even a majority of them, though. This at least is something they all said. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, which makes me think we have a WP:SYNTHESIS problem here. What source groups these people and a subset of their views together like this? This seems like a confection based on multiple sources none of which firmly stand behind our article text. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

So it looks like there's consensus that the current health section, sidestepping the more radical "reverse cancer" claims, is okay. I changed "proposing a vegan diet as a cure" to "claiming that a vegan diet could cure" in the History section, and think that's unproblematic; it's explicitly contextualized as the hypothesis of a single early 19th-century doctor, and doesn't imply any kind of agreement with modern (or contemporary) consensus. If necessary we could add (For a discussion of veganism in modern medicine, see §Health effects.) FourViolas (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the problematic text at the heart of this discussion has now been amended so that no WP:FRINGE problem remains. Alexbrn (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Excellent! There are some other issues though. I will raise them for discussion now we seem to be working better together. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we get back to the discussion about the overall definition of veganism given on the first paragraph of the lead. For anyone new to this topic, my objections to the current description may be briefly stated as: it is unclear, uses vegan language, and is a sythesis of many sources.  Several editors have already done good work in finding independent definitions that we might be able to use. Can we now discuss how this subject in the appropriate section.  Would anyone object if I add numbers to the definitions that we have so that we can refer to them more easily. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At there is no appropriate section, I have started one below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

2.101.170.211
I forgot to sign in when I made a change as 2.101.170.211 Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * And STiki was right to count it as "vandalism and other unconstructive edits". The definition of "propose" is obvious to anyone with some basic knowledge of English. Proposing something isn't even the same as saying it works, just like proposing to someone won't necessarily lead to marriage. It doesn't mean it's bogus either. All you do here is talk about others allegedly creating new definitions while you attempt to put your own irrelevant opinions in the article. --Rose (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Cure for cancer!

 * See also "Cure for cancer!', User talk:Martin Hogbin.

We absolutely cannot have, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for cancer and asthma'. Editors here may well know that a vegan diet does not cure asthma and cancer but there are vulneralble people out there who are taken in by medical frauds such as this and who, as a result, do not try to get proper treatment and may possibly die as a result.

It is pretty obvious that the diet was not proposed literally as a bogus cure but we must make clear that it is just that. I will try alternative wording. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not think, ' proposing a vegan diet as a cure for everything from cancer, asthma and tuberculosis to pimples' is good enough. I know what you mean and you know what you mean but it still could be taken literally. Fraudulent and dangerous nonsense like this needs to be clearly identified in WP. What exactly is wrong with my, 'fraudulently proposing'? I know it is a bit blunt but fraudulent (and dangerous) is exactly what it is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * SarahSV, in response to your comment on my talk page, the fact that the sentence describes a view from 1815 is not relevant. Wikipedia is a widely cited source of knowledge today and seriously dangerous nonsense like this (yes it really does kill people) can be quoted (possibly out of context) to support a current bugus cure of a serious condition by means of a special diet.


 * People trust wikipedia as a source of accurate information. Please do tell me what is wrong with clearly stating the facts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Competence is required. The problem with your edit has been explained to you several times.  It is not possible to discuss these things with someone who consistently reads and interprets material in a way that most people don't and in a way not supported by the context, the history, or the sources.  We just cannot cater to editors with reading comprehension problems. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We must consider how readers might interpret what we write, especially when this might cause them harm. People with life threatening conditions are in a frame of mind that makes them clutch at straws and particularly susceptible to fraudulent cures. Just seeing, '... proposing a vegan diet as a cure for cancer and asthma', might persuade them to give it a try.   I personally know of a person who tried to cure their cancer by dropping dairy products from their diet; sadly it did not work.


 * The internet is full of bogus claims for dietary cures. See:this for example, or this.  As you can see from the last link, bogus cures can cause people not to have conventional treatment which might really help them.  As this link shows a vegan diet might actually do harm as well as prevent patients from seeking more effective treatment.


 * Also, quack medical websites are free to bolster their fraudulent and harmful claims by quoting our words and saying things like 'As Wikipedia confirms, diets have been used for many years to cure cancer'. Most people may indeed not interpret our words that way but the most vulnerable may do so, to the serious detriment of their health.


 * I ask you again, what is the problem with making it crystal clear?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:44, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Break
I note that FourViolas has changed my wording to something clear but a bit less blunt. Thanks, FourViolas, for this good work. Can we do anything similar with, ' proposing a vegan diet as a cure for everything from cancer, asthma and tuberculosis to acne'.?

I also see that SarahSV has removed some overblown medically provocative wording. Is this recognition that I am trying to help and that cooperative editing can be made to work? I hope so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:14, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I see what the other editors are saying here, and i agree with them. It's okay to say that A was proposed as a cure for X, Y, and Z in 1815. It does not endorse proposed cure as being valid. It is a historical account of the concept of veganism. It is good to make clear that this is not endorsed, if we can do that in a way that reads well, but inserting "bogus" isn't the way to do that, as that would imply that the notion that veganism can cure things was bogus in the minds of those who proposed that idea to begin with, and that's not supported by sources. What did here looks really good as a phrasing -- they used "as a supposed health remedy..." This is an excellent phrasing as it avoids the connotations of "bogus" which implies snake oil (a claim that's not supported) and yet it shows that the notion that veganism is a cure is held in the mind of others -- not endorsed by Wikivoice. Martin Hogbin, i see your efforts here as being good faith, and that you see something that concerns you for good reason. There are ways to subtly shift the content to address those concerns that may differ from inserting "bogus" though, and would read better. SageRad (talk) 13:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already thanked FourViolas above for the compromise wording. Personally I think that 'bogus' is justified, claims that veganism can cure serious ilness are indeed snake oil.  It is a bit blunt though and FourViolas has made it more palatable for some but still clearly indicates that WP is not recommending it so it is fine with me.


 * I made two changes and I have asked FV to look at the other wording, which is above and which is still in the article as shown. It does indeed say 'proposing' but I do not think this is clear enough.  I tried 'fraudulently proposing' but that was reverted.  Can we not make it clearer that this proposal is not supported by WP or science?  Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If you can find sources to support that the person who proposed that did so fraudulently, then so be it, otherwise that would be incorrect according to sources. I like how FourViolas phrased a different claim, as i mentioned, using "supposed", as that makes it clear that the claim is not in Wikivoice, but is a claim reported by others. If there is clear WP:MEDRS sourcing to show the contrary, then that could be used in contraindication to the claim. Or if the claim was later shown to be mistaken, in a historical sense, then that could be in the article, as a historical claim not needing WP:MEDRS. I think that is how this works. As always i am open to learning otherwise by good faith advice. SageRad (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree. I don't mean to be rude, but I'm not sure how much we can do for a reader who undertook to refuse evidence-based medical treatment on the grounds that some doctor 200 years ago thought something else might work. If editors are really concerned that readers will take this historical information out of context, we could possibly add a parenthetical note linking to Veganism. FourViolas (talk) 15:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I liked your change to the other wording and agree that, 'fraudulent' is not quite the right word here but we do need to find something to make clear that this is not current medical opinion. I do not think that 'proposing' is good enough.  Maxwell, proposed the concept that light is an electromagnetic wave. As it happens, this is still valid today. On the other hand veganism was proposed as a way to cure cancer but, according to present day medical knowledge, it does not. The fact that something was proposed some years ago tells us nothing about how it is viewed today.


 * I do understand that what we have written does not actually say that this this is still current mainstream opinion on the matter but there are so many sites on the net saying that veganism cures cancer that this statement could easily be misinterpreted as being supportive of those claims. Please see what I have written and the links in the section above.  It is easy enough to take the hard logical line that we are not actually making any medical claims for veganism and it is just our readers' hard luck if they cannot understand our chosen words but is could be very hard luck for them.  This kind of disinformation actually kills people.  I cannot see any valid reason not to make the meaning crystal clear. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think that would be doable. ...published Water and Vegetable Diet, which claimed that a vegan diet could cure... is the standard WP phrasing for "someone said something we don't necessarily endorse". We could also break the fourth wall a little with a comment or hatnote along the lines of, "(For discussion of veganism in modern medicine, see §Health effects.)" FourViolas (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I can live with that. I would have preferred a word or neat phrase that meant, 'claimed incorrectly' or something like that but I cannot think of one so let us leave it at that. Thanks.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any claims that a vegan diet cures everything on the page (69) stated next to the reference. --Rose (talk) 03:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nor do I. It looks like 's intention was to make it clear that Lambe's claims were rather implausibly broad (from a modern perspective). Probably ...could cure a range of diseases from cancer and tuberculosis to acne would be better. The pages supporting the claims in question appear to be a range, in the area of 60-69. FourViolas (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This wording you proposed is undoubtedly better, although reading through 9 pages and attempting to find what the sentence is based on is too much. The references section needs to contain more specific information on that. The word "claimed" in this context doesn't sound very neutral to me either. Can that be changed to something like "opined" or even "thought"? --Rose (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, re: the nine pages, the ref for Shelley and Lambe is James C. Whorton, Crusaders for Fitness: The History of American Health Reformer, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014, pp. 69–70.

The ref for Graham is Andrew F. Smith, Eating History, New York: Columbia University Press, 2013, pp. 29–35 (p. 33 for popularity); and Whorton 2014, p. 38ff.

If you let me know what you're having difficulty finding, I can try to improve the ref. SarahSV (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I had a look at page 69 of Water and Vegetable Diet since it was the only reference that mentioned Lambe as I tried to find where the part "claimed that a vegan diet could cure everything" came from. I didn't find anything similar to it there. If it's from Crusaders for Fitness, then I see no way to verify it without buying the book. In any case, I highly doubt the position was that a vegan diet would cure everything. I can believe that it was worded more like what FourViolas proposed though but it's still not in the article. --Rose (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , if this is about Lambe, Lambe is the primary source and the secondary source is James C. Whorton, Crusaders for Fitness: The History of American Health Reformer, pp. 69–70. If Google won't let you see that, let me know and I'll quote or summarize, but in short he writes that Lambe identified veganism as a cure for "consumption, pimples and virtually all ailments in between." Lambe is here; the subtitle gives the flavour: "In Consumption, scrofula, cancer, asthma and other chronic ailments." He lists cases from p. 146. Bear in mind that this is a relatively unimportant sentence in the history section. SarahSV (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Those two pages aren't available through Google Books to me but based on the subtitle you mentioned that I didn't see at first as I didn't pay attention to the cover of the book, it appears that FourViolas' wording was on point, and I'd like to see those changes in the article along with the word "claimed" replaced with any of the two I suggested or something similar that wouldn't make the tone negative. There are certainly cases when "claimed" is perfectly neutral but here it seems to be a bit off the mark. --Rose (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought we had resolved this. The problem is that the original wording, ' proposing a vegan diet as a cure for everything from cancer, asthma and tuberculosis to acne' although not actually making a literal claim in WP's voice, could easily be understood by a reader to be a WP:fringe statemant that a vegan diet really does cure cancer, particularly by a vulnerable person desperately seeking a cure. Normally the principle would be not be that important but in this case it might be, see this link. 'Claimed' makes it a bit clearer (although not clear enough in my opinion but I can live with it) that WP does not in any way endorse the statement that a vegan diet can cure cancer.

By all means change the text again to better reflect the source but do not write anything that might indicate to our readers, even with slight misinterpretation or wishful thinking, that a vegan diet will cure cancer. Doing so might kill people, really. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like we've reached a consensus compromise: changing to claimed that a vegan diet could cure a range of diseases from cancer and tuberculosis to acne, specifying SV's refs (TYVM for claarifying). "Claimed" is a nice, bare assertion: "he said so", with no endorsement either way. As SV points out, I don't think this is worth more energy. FourViolas (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * FV, I don't know what part II refers to in the Whorton ref. It was correct before (p. 69), but isn't needed now because the long form is in the bundled ref. Rose, if you're not keen on claimed, you could try suggested, but I'm not sure it matters. We may be the only people ever to have read that sentence! SarahSV (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * "Suggested" would be better although it's close to "proposed" that was removed, and while you know I didn't want it to be removed either, I feel like the kind of words I proposed would satisfy everyone and I'm not so sure about "suggested". I understand what you mean when you say the sentence is of little importance but since we're already at it, we might as well improve it and put it to rest. --Rose (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Hebrew sub-articles about Veganism
Just informing the fellow editors, In case someone will write these articles, know that these are their Hebrew parallels in WikiData:

פילוסופיה של הטבעונות - Philosophy of Veganism

תזונה טבעונית ובריאות - Vegan Nutrition and Health

צמחונות וטבעונות ביהדות - Vegetarianism and Veganism in Judaism

That's beside טבעונות - Veganism.

Ben-Yeudith (talk) 04:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We would need you to provide translations if these are to be of any use to us. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article?
This article's neutrality is being disputed on the talk page. Does this warrant a dispute tag on the article? Zippy268 (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a silly RfC - can't the question at the nub of the neutrality dispute be asked instead to shortcut a meta-discussion about a tag? Alexbrn (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The whole purpose of a tag is to facilitate discussion. I don't believe facilitating discussion is silly. As it says in Template:POV "The purpose of this group of templates is to attract editors with different viewpoints to edit articles". Having other editors with various different viewpoint participate in the discussion is valuable to the discussion. Zippy268 (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * An RfC will "faciliate discussion" - better. In practice NPOV tags don't do anything except sit there as a "badge of shame". Alexbrn (talk) 12:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Template:POV expressly prohibits the placement of a tag as a "badge of shame". If that is all it does, then wikipedia admins should remove tagging altogether. The fact that they are available means it is not just a badge of shame. Zippy268 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So maybe we have a solution. No tag, no RfC, but a civil discussion.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I think this RfC is an indication of the frustration felt by some editors here at the page ownership being asserted by some of the regulars here. I do normally like tags but I have tried for some time to discuss the neutrality of this article in general but have been met by threats and personal attacks rather than civil discussion. For this reason I support the tag until we have a free and open discussion about how WP:NPOV should be interpretted here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire purpose of an RFC is to solicit outside opinion, not solidify the opinions of involved insiders. You're missing the point...again. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly normal for involved editors to state their opinions at an RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, you have missed the point. Viriditas (talk) 23:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes (it seems obvious to me that this would be the case). If it's being disputed, then the dispute tag is appropriate. (I came here from NPOVN, where I'm discussing an issue concerning what to call a certain style of punctuation.  So I have seen far less weighty issues marked with dispute tags.) It's annoying to see material that one feels is fully evidenced and supported with a tag suggesting that it is in doubt, but that's how Wikipedia works.  Only if the dispute is completely unsupported should the tag be removed; that's not the case here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No. Zippy, you said at WP:EAR that you would prefer a "neutral party" to comment. I have never been involved in this or any related article, nor with any other editors here, nor have any particular views regarding veganism, and am therefore probably as neutral an editor as you could hope to find. In looking over the discussion just above, and noting the prior discussions, I find 1) your (and Martin's) protestations of non-neutrality to be doubtful, and 2) the discussions themselves not likely to resolve that point. So this seems to come down to whether two (or any) editors have an absolute right to add a dispute tag because they maintain there is a dispute, where the dispute is of their own making, and more experienced editors say otherwise. Please note: you requested a comment, which I have supplied. I do not see that a debate was requested or offered, nor am I interested in debating the point. Whether you agree with my comment is immaterial: you requested comments, and any disputation would suggest that you are motivated by partisanship. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No, and I agree with Alex that this is a pointless RfC. The addition of the tag isn't valid if there is no policy-compliant way to do what Zippy wants. Perhaps he has simply misunderstood what "particularly in diet" means. But if he really wants to downplay dietary veganism in the first paragraph, or even exclude it, he is asking that the article ignore the RS. (See, for example, footnote 1.)


 * This article takes no position on dietary versus ethical veganism. It doesn't claim that one or the other has more or less validity. The only thing we know is that the dietary aspect is front and central, because that's what almost all the RS discuss. In fact, I've had difficulty writing about the other aspects because of the difficulty of finding RS. suggested creating a Venn diagram. I would say this is an excellent idea. SarahSV (talk) 23:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's a blank diagram for illustration. The three sets are strict vegetarians, ethical vegans, and environmental vegans.  They all share diet in common.  They differ on the values of health, lifestyle and anti-commodification, and conservation and sustainability. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This clarifies the function of "particularly in diet." Dietary vegans, ethical vegans and environmental vegans disagree about many things, but they all eat vegan diets and they disagree very little about what that entails. SarahSV (talk) 01:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the function is what is being questioned, at least not by me. I do not have an issue with the function you are referring to, AKA to indicate commonality. The issue is the wording and the biased impression that the particular wording gives readers. It gives readers the impression that all forms of veganism place special emphasis on diet. This is not true in a least one instance. Some other type of wording that does not indicate a special emphasis is placed on diet, but merely a commonality, would be perfectly reasonable. "Particularly", according to the dictionary means "so as to give special emphasis to". Ethical vegans do not place a special emphasis on diet. For ethical vegans, an equal emphasis is placed on all aspects. For ethical vegans, no particular thing is given a special emphasis. Zippy268 (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Stop arguing about arguing There are two concerns: Zippy's proposed changes, and whether procedure is being followed. The changes are (barely) being discussed above; if we listen carefully and respectfully to each other, we can solve them. Arguments (let alone RfCs) about tags and so on are a waste of editor time, as are snarky insinuations. FourViolas (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I second that. Let us discuss the best way to define veganism, according to WP policy.  I would be happy for the tag to be removed if we can have a free, open, and civil discussion in which all are free to contribute without fear of threats or personal attacks. I have started a section on the subject above, in which I have given definitions from three different vegan organisations but which is now being largely ignored. Why do we not continue there, or below if you prefer? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The particular point of this RfC is whether a dispute tag is warranted. Perhaps, perhaps not, but it certainly is not needed, and to insist on the point is to avoid the substantive issue. Closing this RfC would eliminate a distraction. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, let the tag stand for the time being, and see my comment in the above section for my reasons. SageRad (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * No. The dispute is over an attempt to use a primary-source definition (from the Vegan Society) in preference to secondary source definitions (apparently to promote the Vegan Society's point of view). This cannot be done without violating policy and the issue has seen thorough discussion on this page already. Additionally, as some editors have already noted, this RfC is not helpful and should be closed. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Can we all agree then to end this RfC and start some free discussion over the disputed text?
I supported this RfC because it seemed the only way to get people talking in a civil matter about how we should define veganism in the lead. If we can all agree, I would be happy to end the RfC and get taliking? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't forget to sign your posts! Zippy268 (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Would you be happy to call off this RfC if we can get some sensible discussion on how to define veganism in the lead? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How about we agree to leave the tag and discuss? That would show good faith that there is actual will to discuss the issue. SageRad (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I obviously have no objection to that but so far there has been no discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've provided a heap of academic definitions above; I believe they support the current lead. FourViolas (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

TL:DR
If you guys looking for a good definition phrasing, we in the Hebrew Wikipedia had much discussions till we developed the current phrasing that is with high level of accuracy (though it can be shortened in 2-3 words). Ben-Yeudith (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds a bit like OR. We are not supposed to develope definitions ourselves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * OR? Original...R?, Anyway by "developed" I meant we developed a phrasing based on the combination of sources (Vegans and others), Logic, personal knowledge and much debate. I suggest taking a look there - The offer stands before any user... :) Ben-Yeudith (talk) 23:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The lead has been stable for a long time; the first two paragraphs were rewritten by an uninvolved editor who is a very good writer, and there's been little change since then. I think it's obvious to disinterested readers that it's a neutral and helpful description. SarahSV (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Zippy's concern and argument has more or less coalesced into something solid up above. He is working with a different interpretation of the phrase under discussion. I still don't understand Hogbin. Viriditas (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support keeping tag as neutrality is disputed by several editors. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)