Talk:Veganism/Archive 18

Is this page about veganism or about plant based diet?
On November 11th 1950, the "constitution" of the Vegan Society declared that: "The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man... The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals... The Society pledges itself in pursuance of its object to seek to end the use of animals by man for food, commodities, work, hunting, vivisection and all other uses involving exploitation of animal life by man."

In 1979 the definition was further clarified 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."

That 1979 definition is still the one in use today, and is generally accepted by vegans world wide. Veganism is based on this concern for the life, welfare and rights of animals. All vegans, every single vegan in the world, is a "ethical vegan", therefor this distinction between "dietary vegans" and "ethical vegans" in the beginning of the article is wrong. There are people who follow a plant based diet for their own health or for the environment, but to be a vegan is clearly more than that. Veganism means following a strict plant based diet, but it is ALSO a way of life, and having a real concern for the lives and wellbeing of animals. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 12:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , for clarification -- are you trying to say that if you follow a vegan diet for other than ethical reasons, you aren't really a vegan? So you're differentiating between following a vegan diet and veganism? valereee (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I am differentiating between just following a plant based diet and veganism. And in my impression that's something 99% of vegans would agree with. Vegans follow a plant based diet, but veganism is much more than a diet. An example would be a person that eats 100% plant based diet, but buys leather, wool, fur, or cosmetics tested on animals or in other ways unnecessarily contributes to the suffering and killing of animals... that person is clearly not a vegan. All vegans are "ethical vegans", there is no other kind. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , this is an assertion that would require sourcing in order to insert into the article. Who is saying this in a WP:RELIABLE source? valereee (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , The Vegan Society is perhaps the biggest "authority" on the definition of veganism, since the term originated from them. That's were the definition which I cited earlier which has been in use since 1979(as well as the earlier 1951 definition) is from:
 * "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." The Sun The Independent And here BBC links to and cites a part of the Vegan Society definition
 * Most old dictionary definitions are a bit primitive and do only define the "how"(not eating or using any animal products) of veganism and not the "why"(to avoid causing harm to animals, the ethical basis for veganism), which is the most important part of the definition. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , we probably would stay away from the Vegan Society's definition. That's a primary source. But the Sun's article and the Independent's would work to define veganism as "more than a vegan diet". Neither, however, go so far as to say, "All vegans are ethical vegans." Only the Sun's even mentions the word ethical, and that's once in the article. The BBC article is focussed solely on a vegan diet; it's just a list of foods you might not have realized had some connection to animal exploitation. valereee (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like you are trying to write Strict vegetarianism ~ R.T.G 01:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not quite sure what you are getting at there, the link you posted just goes right back to Wikipedia article for Veganism. But, yes, veganism can be described as a stricter form of vegetarianism, as vegans do not eat ANY animal products(while most vegetarians eat honey, egg and milk products) but unlike vegetarianism veganism is always based on the ethical concern for animals, which is why vegans avoid animal products not just in their food, but in their clothes, cleaning products, cosmetics, etc and avoid products tested on animals, avoid entertainment (like Zoo's or bullfighting) or services that require the exploitation, abuse or killing of animals. Many vegans also feel obliged to promote veganism, oppose the exploitation of animals and take part in vegan activism, because of that strong ethical concern that made them vegans in the first place. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 03:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If I recall it correctly, before Watsons Vegan Society, strict vegetarianism, was the only term, and it made it difficult to explain then, that it wasn't really the same as vegetarianism, which people know as so often based mostly on animal products, with the avoidance of meat. ~ R.T.G 04:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, now I understand what you were referring to. It took a few years to properly define the concept of veganism, but it seems that the Vegan Society constitution from 1950 that I cited earlier was already based around pretty much the same concept as the current definition of veganism. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , again, who is saying veganism is always based on the ethical concern for animals? None of the sources you posted are saying that explicitly. It's a very strong assertion, which is why I keep asking. If we're going to state it explicitly, we have to be able to support that assertion by referencing sources that say that explicitly. The Vegan Society -- which I wouldn't like as the only source -- doesn't even go that far. They make a statement that "Vegans avoid exploiting animals for any purpose, with compassion being a key reason many choose a vegan lifestyle." They don't go so far as to say 'all vegans' or 'veganism is always.' valereee (talk) 12:13, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The Vegan Society is not the sole arbiter of veganism and their view doesn't appear to be the general understanding of veganism. We reflect what reliable sources say about a topic and give due weight.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * However, Wikipedia does not authoritate confusion so much as describe the confusion. Strict veg does seem to be the term when referring exclusively to the diet, a setting which includes veganism rather than the other way around. If veganism accepts inclusion, it is merely included, not inclusive, or else there is no word to describe the avoidance of all animal products which is the basis of defining the word vegan to begin with. The whole point of the word vegan is to challenge such assertion as, it doesn't make sense to say so or, that it is even possible to say so or, there is any requirement to say so. Did you know that the depth of language, the number of individual words that your culture understands naturally, does increase the number of colours you can see? But it's probably not important if you envision a world where the blind lead each other blindly (I anticipate a wall of ignorance, so I've damned you, if you should bother, I don't want to debate plain truth, such as the definition of a short word with an important individual meaning). If you want to base your veganism on democratic voting, I am laughing. It's definitely not my fault. Sorry. Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 06:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * and maybe what we need is to add to the article that there is a difference between a vegan diet and veganism. Although actually that seems to have been the whole point of using the term ethical veganism, so maybe it's moot here. valereee (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My short version would have been, understanding strict vegetarianism is critical to understanding the concept of veganism, without trying to deny it's evolution is important to what it is. Political, when the opportunity arises to spread the word, we set about preparing to do so, by removing all the words. The worst thing about censorship is. Thanks Valereee. Whatever youse all do I am sure veganism is a nice thing. o/ ~ R.T.G 15:17, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , ALL of the sources I posted say that veganism is based on the ethical concern for animals, that to avoid exploitation of and cruelty to animals is central to the concept, because they all point to the Vegan Society definition. That is certainly the only generally accepted definition among vegans. And the term "vegan" was created by the Vegan Society, so it is safe to say that they are a reliable source of it's meaning. For fun I just ran a poll on this issue in one of the largest vegan forums on Facebook, and about 97% agree with the Vegan Society definition and that all vegans are "ethical vegans". Of course such a poll is of no use here, but I just wanted to see whether my own perception of the support for this definition was wrong, and it seems not. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * They are all forms of recentism, based on vegans attempts to redefine themselves in response to the new digital age. One of the things about following the opinions of primary sources of high moral standards, is that they might shoot themselves in the foot, then try to cover that up by shooting their foot right off, so that if anyone in authority asks they can say, they always shoot their foot off. Then the authorities are going to reprint their claims as facts about them, that shooting your foot off is one of the various methods of achieving high moral standards, or possibly important for those who do, or something that nobody else seems to understand because they don't want to. Don't you? There was a purpose for the creation of the word veganism. If we cannot agree that, there is no point referring to sources. You win. If you want to base your veganism on democratic voting without reason, you win the version of description, but you lose the meaning. Don't let go the word. Don't let go of any words you can use naturally, without enhancing their deepest meanings, please. ~ R.T.G 18:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * For the life of me I cannot parse your comment other than to say, yes, I know about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. How that relates to vegans, I'm unsure. The suggestion that "vegans" must be the adherent to the philosophy of veganism seems plainly false. The term is widely used to describe anyone who adheres to a diet free of animal products.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Now THAT's how you twist what someone else has to say, ~ R.T.G 18:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding your 18:18, 20 February 2019 comment, it sounds like you're suggesting a prescriptive definition instead of a descriptive one. Wikipedia does the latter.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand your words fir person. I said something very specific. If it is lost on you by way of my example, then it is lost. Apologies, I did also say that, but thanks for asking. However, I am obviously referring to a description, so you'd have to explain that a bit. Why don't you talk about the way I make my responses. ~ R.T.G 18:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The archived discussion I posted (link in the next section on this page) doesn't support that vegans agree on any general definition of veganism. Given the length of the archives for this article's talk page, I suspect there has been lengthy discussion of pretty much every sentence in the article. I'm willing to keep discussing, but please go read the discussion at the link first. valereee (talk) 19:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


 * As noted by Valereee, we've already been over this extensively. And as mentioned by SlimVirgin in the section above, "[...] others abstain from any use [of animal products] for ethical reasons. Both groups are called 'vegans'. 'Particularly in diet' doesn't mean 'only in diet'; it means there is a focus on diet." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

previous discussions in archives
and other editors -- there've been multiple previous discussions around the topic of ethical vs. dietary veganism which you can find by searching on "ethical vegan" (I used the quote) in the archives. This archived discussion from 2017 is very relevant to this discussion: Sources for the dietary veganism distinction valereee (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have looked at some of this, but don't find it very relevant. If there is anything in particular that you want me to take a look at in the context of the discussion we were having, give me a link. The fact is that veganism is NOT limited to a diet. Veganism is a lifestyle, a philosophy AND a diet that is a consequence of the ethical basis of veganism. "Dietary vegans" should perhaps be referred to as strict vegetarians or people on a plant based diet, as it has nothing to do with veganism. Of course journalists who are not vegans and don't know much about veganism, sometimes use wrong such definitions... but among vegans there is almost a 100% consensus around the Vegan Society definition.
 * Anyhow, here are a few more "reliable sources" that refer to the Vegan Society definition of veganism:                        And here PETA describes veganism, without mentioning the Vegan Society definition, but describing it in much the same way TheOriginalVegan (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)‎
 * What aren't you understanding about the past discussions on this matter and why we aren't going to have the article state that vegans must follow the philosophy? As Valereee noted, we've already been over this extensively. The sources that Valereee pointed to are very relevant. Obviously. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * , the fact reliable sources refer to the Vegan Society definition of veganism doesn't do anything to prove that "all vegans are ethical vegans," which was your original point. In fact, just this morning I came across this: Laura Wright (academic) (a vegan herself and an academic who studies veganism) "Vegans tend not to constitute a unified group in possession of a cohesive ideological mandate; they tend not to be joiners," (emphasis hers). That's a pretty strong statement in direct opposition to the argument that the Vegan Society defines veganism for all vegans. It doesn't matter how many reliable sources quote their definition; no reliable source is saying that definition is the definition all vegans use. valereee (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , what those links show is that the Vegan Society definition is the generally accepted definition, unchanged from 1979. There is no other definition that is generally accepted. And therefor Wikipedia should reflect that. And while I can't provide a reliable source that "proves" that almost all vegans support that definition(simply because no reliable source has ever made a poll on that issue), when I did a small poll of this myself on one of the largest vegan forums on Facebook, 97% agreed that they accept the Vegan Soceity definition and that they consider all vegans to be ethical vegans... with only 3% agreeing with the statement "You can be vegan without being concerned about the ethics involved. As long as you follow a vegan diet, you are a vegan". It is not possible to be a vegan without being an ethical vegan, that goes to the core of the definition of the word. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's WP:OR and this entire discussion is becoming WP:IDLI and WP:IDHT.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And, yes, what said -- your own polling on the subject is original research, which also isn't how WP works. Go read the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH guidelines. They're absolutely crucial to understanding Wikipedia. valereee (talk) 14:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I said earlier, I am perfectly aware of that such a poll is not a "reliable source" of information for wikipedia, I only mentioned it because there is no proper research on that available, and that it so overwhelmingly confirmed what I have been saying here. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I can see that you're trying to sincerely debate a point here, and that's great. But as a very, very new editor, might want to consider editing some less-contentious articles for a period while you learn WP policy and guidelines on sourcing. The argument that 'because the Vegan Society definition is often used, the Vegan Society definition is the only true definition' won't fly here. Here's a link: WP:SYNTHESIS to help understand the distinction between reporting what reliable sources are saying and synthesizing from those sources, which is what you are doing with that argument. Believe me, you aren't alone. Many, many new editors have trouble with this distinction. Everyone here arguing against your argument had to learn that distinction. It's not instinctive; our brains WANT to make connections between things. But that's not how WP works. Someone else, in a reliable source, has to make that connection for us before we can report on it. And in this case it would probably have to be SEVERAL someone elses in SEVERAL reliable sources, because right now what we have is multiple sources saying the opposite. valereee (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I have been involved in Wikipedia quite a bit before, but used a different alias back then. I of course understand what you are saying, but at the same time I think it is sad and strange that Wikipedia should be offering an definition of veganism that almost no vegans agree with. There are exceptions of course, but they are rare. On the other hand, many who are not vegan and perhaps not very informed on the subject(including many journalists who decide to write about the latest diet trend) often confuse veganism with a diet. Veganism is not a diet in itself, the vegan diet is a consequence of veganism. But, I'll leave this discussion now. Perhaps somebody else will take this up in the future and correct the article. In the meantime I am concerned that this article will continue to spread misinformation and misunderstanding about veganism. TheOriginalVegan (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * TOV, let's continue this discussion on your talk page. As EvergreenFir has pointed out, it's veered into a separate discussion. valereee (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

___

Removal of info with indication it was taken out of context
Hey, I'm sitting here looking at the page, and the full passage is

A 2006 estimate placed the number of vegans in the US somewhere around 1.7 million, and with "vegan movement organizations counting their membership in the tens of thousands, there are arguable more practicing vegans in the USA than there are members of vegan organizations." Indeed, despite the existence of the Vegan Society, which was founded in England in 1944, vegans tend not to constitute a unified group in possession of a cohesive ideological mandate; they tend not to be be joiners, but they do have 'a propensity towards alternativism in other areas of life...and eschewing the use of all animal products represents a change that necessarily involves all areas of life". While veganism does not constitute a unified social movement, as an ideology it is marked by conscious individual actions that nonetheless stand in stark opposition to the consumer mandate of US capitalism, and for this reason the actions of individual vegans pose a substantial -- if symbolic -- threat to such a paradigm. This book looks at..." (etc.)

How is the part I've bolded, which is what I added to the other section, taken out of context in any way that would be misleading? The context seems unremarkable to me. What am I missing? valereee (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I removed the edit because: (1) that author is already listed; (2) there was no need to give her a dedicated section; (3) it isn't true that she's the only source to "refute [that] 'all vegans' believe any one thing"; and (4) the quote was ended with a comma after "joiners", which arguably lifted it out of context, because the rest of the quote doesn't quite fit the dietary/vegan distinction (note: "eschewing the use of all animal products"): "vegans tend not to constitute a unified group in possession of a cohesive ideological mandate; they tend not to be joiners, but they do have 'a propensity towards alternativism in other areas of life ... and eschewing the use of all animal products represents a change that necessarily involves all areas of life' (Macdonald, 2)". Ending the quote after "joiners" was arguably misleading, and quoted material should not be closed with a comma like that anyway. SarahSV (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I don't see any of that as a reason to remove another editor's post from a talk page. I would argue the remedy is to post what you believe responds to your concerns rather than removing another editor's post from a talk page. valereee (talk) 11:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As you know, it wasn't a talk-page post; and again, the heading was inaccurate and the quote was arguably misleading. That list of sources is fine as it is. It served its purpose at the time, and since then the dietary/ethical distinction has become even more common. SarahSV (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , no, I didn't know it wasn't a talk page post. It's in the talk page archives; I found it while searching the archives. What is it? valereee (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, you dropped by, made a quick edit to this thread to I guess clarify what you'd posted before, so I guess you're ignoring my question? valereee (talk) 13:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PETA 2016, Economist 2019
Hey,, what was wrong with including the PETA mention? It seems like the fact two (very) different sources declared a year in the 2010s 'the year of the vegan' is relevant to this section. valereee (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC) fixing ping valereee (talk) 09:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I can see why not.

PETA announced it in Feb 2016 as a question, therefore - apart from PETA not being a very reliable source - it was crystal ball gazing. A campaigning rather than reportage.

Is the Wikipedia quieter than it used to be these days? I don't see much talk on talk pages. --82.132.229.79 (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Vegetarianism is a better goal line
I read the sources given for the line, "Several vegetarian writers argued that the restrictions of a vegan lifestyle are impractical, and that vegetarianism is a better goal." and they don't appear to say that.

One, for example, is quoting a meat chef Bourdain, he of the "Vegetarians, and their Hezbollah-like splinter faction, the vegans, are a persistent irritant" quote.

Another is an academic paper, I could see no indication the authors are vegetarian. I suggest the line is removed as unnecessary POV stuff.

Unless, of course, it could be balanced with another that says something equally silly like, "Several vegan writers argue that vegetarians are butt hurt because vegans make them look bad and like hypocrites for not walking their talk".

I mean, isn't a bit like a Colts fan sticking a line on the Patriots' page saying they should support them instead?

"Several Colts fans argued that the supporting the Patriots is impractical, and that the Colts are a better team.".

Seriously?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.209 (talk) 01:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The first citation produces this quote: "Likewise, some vegetarians find veganism overly restrictive and difficult, viewing vegetarianism as a more practical way to reduce animal suffering." Anywikiuser (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Concerns regarding undue weight
This is not a professional or governmental source when it comes to nutrition. It is thus undue weight to give it so much prominence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC) "Harvard Medical School, which refers to vegans as strict vegetarians, and has stated, Traditionally, research into vegetarianism focused mainly on potential nutritional deficiencies, but in recent years, the pendulum has swung the other way, and studies are confirming the health benefits of meat-free eating. Nowadays, plant-based eating is recognized as not only nutritionally sufficient but also as a way to reduce the risk for many chronic illnesses."

Harvard Medical School does sound nutritional research and outreach, and its nutrition researchers work closely with those from the dietetics associations. This quote represents the current direction of vegan/plant-based research quite well. Since there's no "academic association" section and considering that Harvard Medical School receives a good deal of professional and government funding, it would fall under the "professional and government associations" section. RockingGeo (talk) 09:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The way you changed the wording makes sense to me. I'm happy with that. RockingGeo (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc James. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Refs
These refs do not even mention the topic of this article?

"The use of antibiotics in livestock is a major factor in the development and spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria and is something that some vegans wish to mitigate. There have been many well-documented events showing that antibiotic usage in livestock results in direct influence of antibiotic resistance in humans. In 2017, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended reducing antibiotic use in animals used in the food industry due to the increasing risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria. HSBC produced a report in October 2018 warning that the use of antibiotics in meat production could have “devastating” consequences for humans. It noted that many dairy and meat producers in Asia and the Americas had an economic incentive to continue high usage of antibiotics, particularly in crowded or unsanitary living conditions. "

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

The refs confirm that antibiotic resistance is transferable to humans. Like I said about the entire section, more refs need to be added about veganism specifically. I just haven't added them due to a lack of time, and would like some help. After a quick search, one for vegans against antibiotic resistance is here: https://www.onegreenplanet.org/natural-health/antibiotic-resistance-through-our-food/, and there plenty refs regarding zoonotic diseases and veganism, like these ones https://www.theflamingvegan.com/view-post/Foodborne-Illnesses-A-Problem-for-Vegans-Too https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-food/animals-used-food-factsheets/vegan-diets-healthy-humane/ https://www.vegan8in.com/2018/03/7-incredible-ways-veganism-can-help-you.html https://peoplefortheethicaltreatmentofanimals.wordpress.com/tag/salmonella/. RockingGeo (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Those sources are unacceptable for the encyclopedia, as they are WP:SOAP soapbox organizations and the content is WP:PRIMARY advocacy. Further, the discussion is off topic and synthesis of your opinion, WP:OR, for the Veganism article. There is no high-quality review from a reliable medical source proving that use of antibiotics in animals or the general food supply transfers as antibiotic resistance in humans consuming those foods; for that you need scientific consensus, WP:MEDSCI, which doesn't exist. --Zefr (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Those citations are to be used to show that some vegans use pathogenic diseases and antibiotic resistance as a reason they go vegan, not to verify that the reasons are valid. It's not my opinion. As for medical sources on the effects of antibiotic use in farm animals, they're all on the Antibiotic use in livestock page, which is very well cited and shows scientific consensus. I feel like this is a misunderstanding, since I could have worded and cited this section better. I'll draft a better version. RockingGeo (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The content and sources for antibiotic transfer via food to humans refer to contamination in the food sources (including fruits and vegetables), not the misrepresented view that eating meat means a higher risk for antibiotic transfer. Because the advocacy sources are soapbox, impossible to generalize accurately, and not usable, and the antibiotic transfer from eating meat is misleading, this isn't a constructive topic to develop for the article. You can try a draft here, but I don't see good sources that will support it. --Zefr (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I never wrote that eating meat directly causes a higher risk for antibiotic transfer. The contamination mostly originates in animal farms though. I tried to say that, and that some vegans aim to minimize the contamination by decreasing the amount of animals that are farmed through lowered demand. Like I said, that could have been written better. RockingGeo (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Doc James and Zefr. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Ethical Veganism
You | reverted edits on the ethical veganism section, stating they were "soapbox blogs/sources." However, according to WP:BIASED and WP:SOAP, one can use biased and soapbox sources to report on such actions/beliefs from a neutral POV, which is exactly what was done here. RockingGeo (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not neutral at all. Besides being soapbox sources and statements, they are weak, primary, POV or blog sources; unencyclopedic, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK #6; WP:NOTEVERYTHING. --Zefr (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you be more specific? What you said obviously doesn't apply to everything you reverted. You can't just throw out unfounded and unexplained accusations and just hope they stick. RockingGeo (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse working conditions
You removed a section I wrote on slaughterhouse working conditions. You said it was off topic, but I don't see how, considering that I cited multiple instances of vegans referencing slaughterhouse working conditions as a reason to go vegan. You also claimed the sources were poor, yet they consist of unbiased news article and scientific studies. I agree that the reference format wasn't great, but that's not a valid reason to remove the whole thing. I need help formatting references. RockingGeo (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I spent my free time today making this little section much better referenced and formatted (without any help from you), and now you just removed it without any valid criticism? Why? It's not off topic. It's not poorly referenced. I asked for consensus when I published it. Then you threaten to block me. What's going on? RockingGeo (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This section is dubious in content and sources, and has not gained enough WP:SECONDARY sources to be credible as a mainstream factor determining veganism. --Zefr (talk) 02:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I've added more WP:SECONDARY sources. See below. Do you now feel it is acceptable? RockingGeo (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zefr. And, RockingGeo, you do not have to keep starting a new section to address objections to your edits. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, ? This is the only section I created. RockingGeo (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , if you do not respond soon (with valid, constructive criticism), I will assume your silence means you accept the content. RockingGeo (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not how consensus-building works; read WP:CON. You already have 3 editors disputing the content (Doc James, Flyer22 Reborn), and no supporters. The content and sources are sufficiently represented in the Ethical veganism section. The rest you want to add is off-topic soapboxing and WP:UNDUE. You have been reported to admin for disruptive editing. I suggest you try constructive editing on other topics. --Zefr (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think this is perhaps good content that is poorly-placed. You seem to have the claims about slaughterhouse working conditions quite well-cited, but insufficient citation that this is actually a prevalent motivation for veganism in the mainstream. I would suggest this content might be better-suited to the Slaughterhouse article, but I see you've already added it there! If you're not aware, duplicating the same content across several wiki articles is generally not appropriate, and I see you've attempted to add this content here as well as the Vegetarianism article in addition to Slaughterhouse, where it remains. If you can find some better sources that suggest this is a prevalent cause for veganism or vegetarianism, I think the best route would then be to add a sentence or two to the 'Ethical veganism' section with a link to the expanded content at Slaughterhouse. Walkersam (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I think you make good points, and I’m willing to make that compromise. I’ll implement the new edits shortly. BRD to the rescue! Feel free to revise any errors I missed. Thank you RockingGeo (talk) 21:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You removed this | new material that I thought was a reasonable compromise, stating "retitle; rv soapbox blogs + non-WP:SCIRS refs; rv off-topic POV." Let me address you concerns:
 * The retitle is incorrect. These concerns are not about animals. They are about slaughterhouse workers.
 * According to WP:SOAP, "An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." This is exactly what I did. I reported about the views of some vegans. I didn't try to pass off the view as fact.
 * I'm not making any scientific claims here, so WP:SCIRS is irrelevant. Vegan news articles, organizations, advocacy groups, and blogs are perfectly reliable, notable, and verifiable for reporting on the opinions of some vegans. They may be biased, but according to WP:BIASED, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. ... Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context." Obviously, these sources are reliable in this context.
 * I fail to see how reporting on the opinions of vegans is off topic for the veganism article or pushing any biased POV outside of this appropriate context.
 * Unless you have any further reasons why my material should stay removed, it should be reinstated immediately. Thank you RockingGeo (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , I’m afraid I must concur with reverting your latest edit. Again, for this content to be relevant in this article, you need sources that demonstrates this is a *prevalent* reason for veganism. The source you included only serves to demonstrate one person feels this way. Also, it is from a "community contributions" platform, which as far as reliable sources go is probably even worse than a personal blog. As you're now repeatedly making edits that are being disputed by multiple editors, you should refrain from attempting to make further changes to this article and instead post a draft of your proposed edit here to build consensus. Otherwise you are engaging in edit warring which is liable to get you banned. Walkersam (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I believe there has been a misunderstanding. Before my edit was reverted, I did include many reliable sources from different POVs (news articles, vegan organizations, advocacy groups, and blogs). I even quoted PETA and Vegan Australia, and I specifically mentioned Mercy for Animals (if that’s not mainstream, I don’t know what is). For whatever bewildering reason (which I assume was in good faith), (u|Zefr) only left a misleading title and probably the poorest reference for this matter.
 * Now with the broader context in mind, do you still disputed it? RockingGeo (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, you must be referencing this edit. I believe your additional citations were lost because they were formatted unusually -- they are all showing up as a single cite. The conventional way is to use a separate tag for each. Anyway, I personally think your sources are fine, but what they demonstrate is some vegans think this issue is important. I'm not sure that they demonstrate your claim that "Many ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products.", and thus that it is notable enough to include in the article, and I don't know that this would be proven even if you found a hundred similar articles to cite. What you need to support the claim you are making is a survey or something that shows this is a statistically significant concern. I think there is a way to include some sort of content on this topic in the article, even if not necessarily the exact claim you are making in this edit. If you want to simply say "some vegans cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products", I suspect you could build consensus for that. (But again, you need to actually build that consensus. Since you don't seem to have acknowledged this yet I will stress: you were already temporarily banned for edit warring on this topic. Continuing to make these edits without first building consensus here will be further violation of Wikipedia policy and is liable to get you banned permanently.) Walkersam (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, if you just want a change from many vegans to some vegans, I have no issue with that. I'm sorry if the citation bundling threw you off. I was trying to avoid citation overkill. RockingGeo (talk) 21:42, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is an attempt to build consensus. I want to get this settled quickly so we can focus on other things. Who here agrees or disagrees that the following material is appropriate for this page? RockingGeo (talk) 21:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:Consensus does not meant getting your way. I agree with Walkersam. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I realize that. That's why I have made extensive changes to my original edit. As for agreeing with Walkersam, I've addressed this below. RockingGeo (talk) 00:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Slaughterhouse worker exploitation concerns
(This is an old version. See one-sentence version below) The Vegan Society has noted, “by extension, [veganism] promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans.” Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products. Mercy For Animals has especially been a leading voice, producing multiple publications that advocate for veganism to support slaughterhouse workers. In 2016, Maya Gibson, a representative of Vegan Australia, wrote, “Not only do animals suffer when they are treated as commodities, but so do humans, in many different ways. Please take the logical and compassionate next step and go vegan.” In a 2018 opinion piece by The Guardian, vegan journalist Chas Newkey-Burden has said, “Few are even aware of the plight of slaughter workers. But market forces are simple – every time you put meat in your shopping trolley, you are funding the slaughter, globally, of 70bn [sic] farmed animals each year, the destruction of the environment and yes, the exploitation of vulnerable workers.” In a report by Oxfam America, slaughterhouse workers were observed not being allowed breaks, were often required to wear diapers, and were paid below minimum wage. In reference to this issue, PETA has said, “Animal rights are human rights, too. … Whether out of concern for the animals or the workers, the conscionable choice that anyone shocked by this report can make is to go vegan.”

---
 * Sorry, but no, I don't think this is appropriate. As I said above, your sources thus far seem only to demonstrate this motivation exists, not that it is widespread amongst vegans. As such, I don't think it's appropriate for more than a sentence or two to be devoted to the topic. Even if more coverage were warranted, your several quotes merely restate the argument without adding anything to the informative nature of this article. Furthermore, your references are still not formatted correctly, and you continue to repeat content which is more appropriate in other articles: your details about the specific conditions of slaughterhouses would not be appropriate in any version of this article; those should be in Slaughterhouse, where you've already added them, and which you could certainly link to if appropriate. I'm afraid I've devoted as much time to this as I'm willing, and while I've tried to presume you are editing in good faith you seem to be repeatedly ignoring the feedback you've received, so this will likely be my last input on the matter. I hope you can reach some consensus here with other editors. Walkersam (talk) 02:04, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time. Trust me, I this has taken up way more of my time than I anticipated as well. I must have originally misunderstood what you wanted, but am I understanding you correcting that if I were to reduce this to one sentence (such as the one below), you would then find it appropriate? That also works for me. (Also, the references were formatted correctly, according to WP:BUNDLING, but I did it the way you wanted and removed the more extraneous refs.) RockingGeo (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Some ethical vegans and vegan organizations cite the poor working conditions of slaughterhouse workers as a reason to reject animal products.


 * Walkersam is correct. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:40, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. Are you referring to my second-to-last edit? Walkersam hasn't commented yet on the current version I'm suggesting. I agreed that the changes were warranted, and that's why I made a one-sentence version. RockingGeo (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
In Ref 345, if someone could fix the doi, that would be great. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ~ Amory  (u • t • c) 15:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Merge with Jainism. Better Together?
Jainism and Veganism should be merged because it is exactly same philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kundakundakunda (talk • contribs) 22:13, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow. I thought the big huge reference list below was part of the request. It's an interesting suggestion. Jainism is a religion with a god Gods as far as I recall. If you were a vegan, to your god, you might think it was blasphemy to claim veganism was more like a form of vegetarianism, perhaps even the form of vegetarianism. ~ R.T.G 18:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I can see you did not do your best effort to answer the question and did not even look the article about Jainism to verify your shoddy memory. I'm no expert in the subject but read some of the article, which makes me think that although Jainism believes in gods, it is misleading to say that Jainism "is a religion with a god", as it doesn't believe in a creator, destroyer, or ruler god as in the Abrahamic religions. So your rationale that follows seems to be baseless or, if I didn't understand, please explain it. Thinker78 (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I know well enough what Jains won't do. What they do do though, well maybe I should... ~ R.T.G 14:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Jains believe in many Gods, none supreme. Jainism seems to be concerned with sacrosanctity and describing the universe, where veganism isn't necessarily concerned with that, and is more about the quality of interaction between humans and animals. It's just the contemporary end of a long standing tradition of cultural improvements, no murder, no domestic violence, care for children, prevention of starvation and desperate living etc. Changes which seem wholly moralistic and alien when they are devised, but eventually are regarded as little more than simple signposts to good practice. Jainism wants to convince you that you will be born again, possibly for similar goals to veganism, but veganism is strictly veganism. It is: Stop trying to gain from animals for various reasons, ad finitum. Jainism is not exactly that. ~ R.T.G 15:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think that would be the best idea. While the two topics contain a lot of similarities, the history and cultural context of each topic differ significantly. The philosophy isn't exactly the same, either. Many Jains consume dairy, and many vegans eat vegetables that Jains will not eat. RockingGeo (talk) 01:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is universal. Also, legally, jains are only supposed to consume the excess milk remained after fulfilling needs of Cow's Kids. Can't vegans make a concession of onion, potato and garlic and join hands to give a befitting reply to Speciesist, which is 99% of world population? We are tired of fighting the so called humanists alone and need help!!!! Kundakundakunda (talk) 02:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to expand on the relationship between veganism and Jainism on their respective pages, but as it has been said, the topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles. RockingGeo (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No to merge: they are not the same. Many vegans are, for instance, atheists, and other religions also practice veganism. The macrobiotic diet offers a case in point of a relationship between a specific diet and religion. AHampton (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Removing health info
Can you lead a healthy life as a vegan? Yes, you can, but you are strongly advised that a visit to the nutritionist should become a habit (which most of carnist people don't have to). Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Health research?
Bone density tends to be lower because it contains less impurities. It fact the bones are stronger as the ratio of plant to animal goes up. B12 deficiency resulted from eating root vegetables found in the soil, nothing to do with eating animals. Other animals produce B12 naturally in their gut, as they do vitamin C.. Omega 3 is found in walnuts, kidney beans, soya bean oil... It's a horribly misleading archaic fear mongering section and I am going to delete it because it is contrary and unbalanced. ~ R.T.G 11:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * References indicate vegans who do not supplement suffer from B12 deficiency. Not sure why you removed these references. This is common and non-controversial knowledge. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because the presentation is negatively unbalanced and misleading. Are you familiar with the subject? ~ R.T.G 13:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I mean, the current source for the bone density "risk" literally says these bones are less delicate. It says quite clearly to me, but not without explanation, and not explained in the same section in the resource, that the risk is associated with not eating green vegetables. The article should reflect that, or say nothing (I know you don't like it, I don't like it either, before you respond bluntly). For a bit of colour, reading through this study on the subject, vegans are shown to ingest several times more protein than meat based eaters. These things often require, slightly fuller explanation when presented, or they become negative uneccesarily.


 * And I can outline the relevance. Here is one of the largest studies as reported by Oxford Uni . Over 30,000 participants and they conclude that mineral density is lower and fractures are higher, regardless of greens or whatever. But it doesn't seem to want to mention what Oxford publishes in another story... "The results suggest that vegetarian diets, particularly vegan diets, are associated with lower BMD, but the magnitude of the association is clinically insignificant." Are we getting it? ~ R.T.G 15:06, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If a source is reliable then it will be cited on Wikipedia. This is the content you removed from the article, it is from reliable sources:

In regard to bone-density, the link you gave is good and from 2019, we should cite this on the article, we do not need to be citing an older study from 2009 to invent a false balance. The line "Vegans might be at risk of low bone mineral density without supplements", is supported by reliable sources. I see no reason to delete this content. There is no negative unbalance here. Psychologist Guy (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Pah! What a biased response. Of course the reasons should be detailed better than, because veganism gives you cooties. Fin. ~ R.T.G
 * It's woefully inadequate. ~ R.T.G 15:43, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to insult the person here. What I mean to insult is, the research which does say something says, increased risk of fracture goes up in the single digit percentage figures, whereas decreased risk over time, for stuff like hip fractures, improves by like sixty percent. Improves by sixty percent wake up. You know how sometimes factors aren't factored..? Well, aren't those who switch to veganism more likely to start exercising a lot more and stuff... And they notice a tiny miniscule increase in fracture rates? Possibly from hopping around being fit and light and strong and stuff in such small figures. The section is certainly skewed against the reality. The reality is certainly available in the sources. Bone density has to do with nutrient uptake, and muscle. They literally call it your "skeletomuscular system" (Human musculoskeletal system). Now please, agree to stop this nonsense. "results suggest that at the time of peak bone mass attainment, physical activity is an important predictor of the clinically relevant proximal femur in young men with a low or moderate level of physical activity.", similar, Journal of the Formosan Medical Association on strength rather than density being the avoiding factor for disease, rather than paranoia. It would be more fair to suggest, rather than causing disease, that veganism causes, great paranoia. Huge, massive amounts of denial and paranoia. ~ R.T.G 14:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Protein uptake information is also non existent. Those who do not have the patience, for long study, refer to this page to settle interpersonal disputes. This page is being used in the long term, to beat vegan opinions down, in cases where it should lift them up in the wide world. Among the links above on bone density is information regarding nutrient uptake, but all forms of nutrient are listed. The intake of protein is determined to be several times the order of meat eaters. I am not seeing that anywhere. Anywhere... sheesh? ~ R.T.G 17:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Odd sentences in led
There are three odd sentences in the lede, the first two contain comparisons but they do not state what they are comparing against.


 * "vegan diets lowered the risk of..."
 * "Vegan diets tend to be higher in..."

It is very important to state what diet these vegan diets are being compared to as it would be very different to state that vegan diets are healthier than eating a diet of Cheetos and Pepsi (a meaningless and obvious statement) than to say vegan diets are healthier than a normal healthy diet that included meat and dairy (a profound statement).

The other sentence I take umbrage with is "As with any poorly-planned diet, unbalanced vegan diets may lead to nutritional deficiencies that nullify any beneficial effects and may cause serious health issues." As most people are on a eat-what-you-want-to-eat diet (a poorly-planned diet) without running into nutritional deficiencies this sentence appears false. Perhaps the author meant to compare against poorly-planned extreme diets where whole groups of nutritional foods were being avoided for whatever reason rather than just unplanned diets which may of course led to malnutrition but rarely nutritional deficiencies. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:274:B0BC:DD16:18FA:C1B0 (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Vegan living, including diet, is about avoiding animal products and animal use. All exceptions to that can be defined by one common element. It is the opposite of lifestyle choices, including diet, which rely on animals. That's already been said in the section. The more we use the word "animals" to describe what veganism is, the less clearly it can be understood. There is talk about redefining what veganism is, but stereotypically, vegans cannot agree what that should mean. I can tell you, rather than veganism being the world where we abstain and avoid animal products, veganism is about the world without them. As such, the less use of the word animals in the description, the better, across the board, because that is what veganism means ad infinitum. That is difficult to get through because of relative peripheral circumstance, a natural contradiction which cannot be avoided, but such is a tale for another day children. The most favourable description of veganism uses much less wording, much less often, to describe what veganism is not. It's fine without a deeper conviction toward the opposite circumstance. If you don't understand what the opposite of veganism is from the first sentence, I suggest that you can never understand, no matter how many subsequent words are added, because it is really simple. In fact, the first comma should be replaced by a full stop (period). Other relative philosophies and situations are defined by veganism, rather than in definition of it. ~ R.T.G 20:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My above statement was too cryptic. Because veganism is about the absence of animal products and animal use, as little attention as possible should be given to describing animal products and use, on this the main page for the subject. Instead, attention should be given primarily to situations without animal products and use. The first sentence would describe very sufficiently, to avoid such questions as the above OP, if the first comma were replaced with a full stop (period), "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products" (perhaps even "...the use of animals for products and other subjugation."). Knowledge such as detailed reasoning for choosing veganism, which heavily describes situations which are not vegan, could and should be on another page, and thereafter, other closely related topics which rely heavily on the description of situations which are not vegan, could also be aligned to other pages, and linked in the "See also" section and/or in section headings.


 * Veganism isn't about animal activism, so much as animal activism is about veganism, which should be reflected by this article, or it might not be reflected at all... I have a deep respect, and even personal biases, for many kinds of activism related to veganism, but I really do not think splitting information in a categorical way would reduce the true impact and dissemination of the subject, on the whole. It's simply a rejection of tradition as a guide, which is important for neutrality. Quid pro quo, Clarice..? ~ R.T.G 23:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Secondly, regarding deficiencies, it has been my understanding for a long time that deficiency is like a plague even among wealthy countries. The Wikipedia article Micronutrient deficiency seems to support this. Without evidence to the contrary... ~ R.T.G 00:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Honey
When the article says that vegans do not eat animal-derived substances, should it put in that this includes honey? Vorbee (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs a WP:RS source stating so. --Zefr (talk) 21:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * There is disagreement on that, as mentioned in the Veganism article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, have you figured out to navigate through editing and reviewing these articles?PatDillard (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bloating
RockingGeo, I ask that you stop bloating this article with unnecessary detail or trivial quotes like this one. Wikipedia is also not big on the quote form you used before I changed it. See MOS:BLOCKQUOTE.

If you reply, please do not ping me. This article is clearly on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I didn't realise that form was a faux-pas. I'll avoid quoting that way in the future. Thanks for the correction. RockingGeo (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding this addition, reverted as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this? Two points: Unless you do not understand what a WP:Reliable source is, which is evidently the case, it is clear that we do have a rule against citing Reddit. What do you not understand about WP:Self-published? Do I need to list Reddit there so that you get the point? Also, as made clear by What Wikipedia is not, "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * First, there's no such thing as "bloat." There is WP:FROG, but in the case of excessive article length, it is just recommended to split the article and create a new daughter article, not delete encyclopedic information.


 * Second, "indiscrimainate collection of information" applies to things like excessive and unexplained statistics, exhaustive logs of software updates, entire full texts of long manuscripts, etc. It does not apply to a small quote being placed in a single section of the relevant topic. Content is suitable for inclusion as long as it is both verifiable and represents the significant viewpoints. Considering who Alex Hershaft is, this quote is very significant.


 * Third, I seem to understand WP:RS and WP:SPS pretty well. Reddit (and other similar forums/blogs) have no specific ban. They're just self-published primary sources that require more scrutiny. WP:SPS states, "Self-published sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This is exactly the case, as Alex Hershaft is definitely a published expert within his field of animal rights and ethical veganism, considering that he created the field. (Also, when quoting living persons, it is strongly recommeded that only primary sources be used, which will mainly include self-published works.)


 * Lastly, this section does not have many viewpoints from non-academics, which introduces an WP:UNDUE bias against them. The majority viewpoints of the leaders of the animal rights and animal welfare communities should be represented here, which is what I'm trying to do. RockingGeo (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)


 * TL;DR: Bloat doesn't exist, 'indiscriminate collection' doesn't apply here, there are no outright bans against sps, and academics are given undue weight. RockingGeo (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:BLOAT aside (which is about a different matter), article bloat is exactly what WP:INDISCRIMINATE states. And if this were a biography, WP:DIARY would apply and would be what is meant by "article bloat." That you are focused on the examples at WP:INDISCRIMINATE rather than WP:INDISCRIMINATE quite clearly stating "Merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." shows that you just don't get it, as is usual when it comes to your editing. It's as if you were to argue that Reddit doesn't count as a self-published source because it's currently not listed as an example. And for some odd reason, you seem to think that we are supposed to add, and add, and add to articles with no regard for adding unnecessary content, including trivia. If article bloat wasn't a thing on Wikipedia WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DIARY and WP:SIZE wouldn't exist.


 * You state that you seem to understand WP:RS and WP:SPS pretty well? I disagree. You stated, "Also, when quoting living persons, it is strongly recommended that only primary sources be used, which will mainly include self-published works." What???? Strongly recommended where? We can take this to the WP:Reliable source noticeboard or start a WP:RfC and see if others agree with you that a person claiming to be Alex Hershaft on Reddit should be used as a source. In the RfC, we can ask if this quote is necessary to improve this article or if it improves the article at all. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I know what you meant by bloat. I just think you're using the term incorrectly, which is why I linked WP:FROG. As I've explained, 'indiscriminate collection' doesn't apply here because it refers to insignificant content. You've not stated why Alex Hershaft's thoughts on ethical veganism are insignificant trivia. Surely a statement by the co-founder and president of the Farm Animal Rights Movement isn't insignificant.


 * I'm not arguing that reddit isn't a sps. I specifically said that sps are fine in this context.


 * "When quoting living persons, it is strongly recommended that only primary sources be used" is paraphrased from the RS policy on quotations, so I guess it's strongly recommended in the RS/MOS policy.


 * As for the authenticity of the source, Alex Hershaft complied with the AMA verification policy (which requires official identifying documents), he publicly uploaded a unique photo of himself for the event, and Alex Hershaft's organization (FARM) commented on the event on their official facebook page. Here is a news article written by the executive director of FARM identifying the event and confirming Hershaft's identify:


 * You can start a WP:RfC if you want to. I stand by my previous comments, but we both have much better things to do than continue to argue over a single quote that is obviously significant and reliably sourced content. RockingGeo (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Side note, WP:SIZE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are not the same thing, as you're implying. WP:INDISCRIMINATE has nothing to do with the size of an article. It's about the significance of the content. WP:SIZE specifies nothing about content significance, and only says that an article with too much content should have its content split, not deleted. RockingGeo (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm not using the term incorrectly in the least. Not every term we use on Wikipedia for article issues has a guideline or policy for that exact term. Editors state "bloat" and "article bloat" all the time on Wikipedia, and they usually are not referring to WP:BLOAT. And since I've been editing this site for far longer than you have, I do not need you telling me how I'm supposedly wrong about you bloating this article. It's not as though I'm referring to the Hershaft piece only either. The bloating concerns other edits you've made as well. This section starts off with a concern about a different piece you added. You engage in WP:Advocacy left and right on this site, and there seems to be no end in sight. The Alex Hershaft comment is significant to you. But does it improve the article? I say no. As for not "arguing that reddit isn't a sps.", you stated "there are no rules against citing reddit." There are, as I've made very clear above. I didn't state that you are "arguing that reddit isn't a sps." I stated, "It's as if you were to argue that Reddit doesn't count as a self-published source because it's currently not listed as an example." Your paraphrase is a faulty interpretation of Reliable sources. And because it is, I see that I need to address this on that talk page sometime soon. We can't have the wording there being misused in this way. I never stated or implied that WP:SIZE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE are the same thing. My point, which you seem to keep failing to grasp, is that Wikipedia is very much concerned about article bloat, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DIARY, Handling trivia, and WP:SIZE all demonstrate that.


 * I'm not going to keep debating you on this. RfC started below. If editors agree with you, I won't like it, but I'll accept it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * How is my interpretation of Reliable sources faulty? The first two sentences specifically state, "The accuracy of quoted material is paramount and the accuracy of quotations from living persons is especially sensitive. To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted."RockingGeo (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." does not mean "Use this post from a forum or from Twitter (etc)." A reliable source can take from (and cite to) the original source being quoted, which is why, when given the option of citing a Twitter source, we opt to cite a reliable source that points to the Twitter post. If the text has not been reported on in a reliable source that is non-published, we usually do not cite it. You don't see editors using Donald Trump's tweets directly. They use reliable sources to report on his tweets. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC about a Reddit source for the Ethical veganism section
Should this source, a Reddit source, be used for this text in the "Ethical veganism" section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * No, per my above arguments. The Reddit comment is WP:Self-published and doesn't improve the article. And where do we draw the line at including a notable person's comments from Reddit or any other social media site? Hershaft has made a lot of comments on Reddit. How do we decide which ones to include and why? That his comments exist do not mean they need to be cited. If the comment is truly worth including, it would have been covered by a WP:Secondary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


 * And, to repeat, given RockingGeo comments above and below, "the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted" does not mean "Use this post from a forum or from Twitter (etc)." A reliable source can take from (and cite to) the original source being quoted, which is why, when given the option of citing a Twitter source, we opt to cite a reliable source that points to the Twitter post. If the text has not been reported on in a reliable source that is non-published we usually do not cite it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Below, RockingGeo states, "His AMA interview was actually covered by a secondary source, see here (yet another misrepresentation of the issue)." And yet that source does not include the quote that RockingGeo wants to include. So, no, not a misrepresentation of the issue. RockingGeo wanting to include the Reddit source is not about any policy (WP:Reliable sources is not a policy anyway; it's a guideline). It's about no secondary source covering the quote. If this source is allowed to be included, we will see more unnecessary additions or trivia added sourced directly to social media. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, per my above arguments.
 * 1) WP:SPS are acceptable when they are by an expert in the field, which is the case here, as "this Reddit comment" is a verified statement during an AMA by the co-founder of the US animal rights movement, Alex Hershaft. (Simply referring to it as a Reddit comment without context is a bunch of weasel words, implying that it isn't verifiable or significant. I explained above why it is authentic, but TL;DR: His organization acknowledged the event and he even posted a public picture of himself for the event as proof)
 * 2) His AMA interview was actually covered by a secondary source, see here (yet another misrepresentation of the issue).
 * 3) This internet forum was cited because quotation policy is to cite the original source being quoted.
 * 4) His other comments were not on ethical veganism, which is why they were not added.
 * 5) This quote was added because Hershaft is a significant figure in the ethical vegan community who's thoughts on ethical veganism are relevant and because non-academics are under-represented in the section, biasing it against them. Since Hershaft isn't an academic, this quote would help correct this undue weight, improving the article.
 * 6) The person against adding Hershaft's quote (the one who started this WP:RfC) has not once explained why they think this comment is not an improvement to the section, besides from simply implying that it would make the section too long, which is not a valid reason to remove content, per WP:SIZE. RockingGeo (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, it is WP:UNDUE to cite a Reddit comment with no coverage in WP:SECONDARY sources. The HuffPost entry doesn't count since it does not cover the comment, and is from a "contributor", hence no more reliable than a blog per WP:RSP. Collecting an excessive number of opinions does fail WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. I have no idea what reason it would be so important for non-academics specifically to be represented. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, per Crossroads. The reliability of this self-published source doesn't seem to be a problem, but it's not our job to curate a selection of comments that people arguably important to veganism have verifiably made.
 * Since veganism, more than animal rights generally, is in large part a social movement, it's a nice idea to ensure good coverage of non-academic movement leaders. However, the quotations (if any) and individuals we discuss should be those selected by reliable secondary sources such as and, not the ones individual editors find most interesting or compelling. FourViolas (talk) 15:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such a well thought out answer. Your argument has convinced me I'm in the wrong ( I see now why you're right). I'll stay away from all self-published quotes from now on (unless they're mentioned by a secondary source), and I'll have to give those books a read.
 * RockingGeo 岩石  Talk  08:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019
Hello,

The changes I suggest concern this phrase : A 2016 systematic review from observational studies of vegetarians showed reduced body mass index, total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and glucose levels, possibly indicating lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer, but having no effect on mortality, cardiovascular diseases, cerebrovascular diseases, and mortality from cancer.[247]

1) the article was published in 2017 not 2016 2) Since the wikipedia page is about VEGANISM and not general vegetarianism, I don't think it is pertinent to reference it here. 3) Although, in the article have a phrase specific about veganism witch states the following : Similarly, although in a very limited number of studies, vegan diet showed a significant association with a reduced risk of total cancer incidence (¡15%). Johnnyyob (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: The study referred to did look at studies by that used both vegetarian and vegan populations versus general diet cohorts, but the request is correct that the claims partly fail verification of the source. I reduced the text to the only significant finding from the study for veganism. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:14, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2020
Vegan Economics, has to be rubbish, by being overtly biased. unless the average yank eats 365 animals a year?? Highly improbable, therefore immediately remove or add a "caution" note. Even Homer Simpson needs help to eat a whole pig or piglet! 121.99.108.78 (talk) 07:27, 1 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ - The edit template states the request must "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". A WP:RS source is also needed. --Zefr (talk) 15:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe "immediately remove or add a "caution" note" is unambiguous. Further "immediately remove" means remove the whole section as the whole section is blatantly biased, i.e. replace with a section wide delete, e.g. replace x with nothing (no y) at all121.99.108.78 (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sentence tagged with better source needed. These numbers come from some online calculator that derives its numbers from the somewhat-less-than-truthful film Cowspiracy. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks Thjarkur, please find a link to epa report webpage, reliable source and much more balanced than all sources that supports the erroneous 51%, hope you can disseminate., Cheers 121.99.108.78 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Further I note that worldwatch.org and all associated site are now defunct and i cannot find a complete report including methodology and data, I do have this though from vegan.com https://www.vegan.com/articles/environment/a-sympathetic-but-skeptical-look-at-goodland-and-anhangs-livestock-and-climate-change/.121.99.108.78 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, as animals like shrimp, crayfish, sardines, frogs, oysters, crickets, and other small animals used for food fill in the average. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2020
I'd like to suggest an update to "Canada: In 2018, one survey estimated that 2.1 percent of adult Canadians considered themselves as vegans". To be replaced or updated with data from this more recent (2020) survey: https://vegfaqs.com/number-vegans-in-canada-survey/. That recent survey shows an estimated 4.6% of adult (18+) Canadians are vegan. DCjazzy33 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌: source is a one-person blog. WP:RS is needed. --Zefr (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Does this apply in this context? The source of the data is not an opinion, it's from a reliable survey platform with a larger sample size than the existing (outdated) data that's on the current page. DCjazzy33 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes it is unreliable. It needs to be published either by a respectable survey company or in a scholarly paper. Online surveys published on someone's blog aren't considered reliable. – Thjarkur (talk) 00:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Veganism by country
The article contains data from the Gallup Institute for 2012. These data should be replaced by data from the same institute for 2018. In 2018, 3% of Americans called themselves vegans.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/238328/snapshot-few-americans-vegetarian-vegan.aspx

46.148.180.57 (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2020
Reuben.kkk (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

So basically the extremists are worse than 1000 cows this means that going vegan is much worse than actually having a balance diet
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.--  Deep fried  okra    12:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020
I request adding an additional section about vegan medications. A surprising number of common medications are not vegan, either due to filler ingredients, active, or something as simple as shellac (derived from insects) in the pharmaceutical dye used on capsules. I recommend adding the section after the "Vegan Diet" and "Personal Items" sections. Below is the suggested wording for a vegan medicines section.

==Vegan Medicine==

Most vegan certifications on medicines and supplements ensure that the product does not contain any animal byproducts. However, many pharmaceutical ingredients can be derived from either an animal or animal-free source. For example, the most common inactive ingredient in tablets or capsules is magnesium stearate. Magnesium stearate can be derived either from animal fat or palm oil, but manufacturers do not often make the distinction on their packaging. Organizations, such as the Vegan Society, PETA, and VeganMed, offer certifications that provide clarity for consumers. Certifications that provide in-depth laboratory testing as a component of their certification can differentiate between animal-based and plant-based ingredients, providing consumers with peace of mind. A second concern for vegans searching for medicine is that the FDA regulatory process for ingredients or drug creation requires animal testing. As such, vegan certifications can only ensure that the medicine or supplement is free of animal products, but not necessarily animal testing. For this reason, terminology like animal-free is more accurate than vegan. Forest2020vision (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

❌ - this is unencyclopedic, promotional, soapbox content for "VeganMed" (a retail sales company online); WP:SOAP for this article. No WP:MEDSCI source is offered (or exists, to my knowledge). --Zefr (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

top right picture does not seem to show vegan food?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creamy_roasted_sprouts_and_pasta_(8200316502).jpg (nice picture but looks like plain cheese and the comment to the picture does not explicitly state that it is vegan) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.99.176.110 (talk) 18:52, 1 February 200 (UTC)
 * does not appear definitively vegan — I'd support a suitable replacementor deletion of it. AHampton (talk) 03:37, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * On the Licencing section of the file, there is a link to the original posting on Flickr. The Flicker's description links | to the owner&#39;s blog, and in it he mentions that the topping it's breadcrums (also, no cheese in the ingredient's list). --  Genesis Bustamante  (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Though it is vegan, it is not that clear, especially the pizza, to the casual visitor and we cant expect readers to go check the photographers blog. ~ BOD ~ TALK 22:45, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The pasta does not appear vegan. I previously added only vegan confirmed and verified vegan pics to this infobox, so someone has changed them yet again. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This pasta? It's hard to discern from vegan pasta and egg pasta, they look the same. The owner used it in his blog, and his blog says this: "My posts here will be 100% vegan.". -- Genesis Bustamante  (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems conclusive to me but I wish the actual image description specified it is vegan so people do not have to check the blog to confirm. Bodole (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Short description
Someone changed the short description from "the practice of abstaining from animal products and a philosophy that rejects animal commodification" to "practice of abstaining from eating or otherwise using animal products".

There has long been a sense among practicing vegans that explicitly rejecting the practice of commodifying animals and its underlying presumption of not recognizing nonhuman personhood is part of what veganism is and ought to be. I think we need to deliberate about this 'change' (instead) AS a PROPOSED change and not as a mere clarification. The editorial intent may have been to clarify, but much is lost when the article discusses merely a diet. MaynardClark (talk) 09:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the person who added that the previous short description was aiming for it to match the lead sentence without being lengthy, as the short descriptions are not supposed to be lengthy. The lead sentence states, "Veganism is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." And the lead sentence (as seen in the archives) has been significantly debated. It is the WP:Consensus wording after more than one discussion. I don't feel strongly about how the short description is worded, however. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see that Sdkb is the one who recently changed the short description. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Please don't ping me when replying to me on this talk page. It's on my watchlist. I will see replies. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, it's not really 'good journalism' to undercut a primary meaning in order to establish a concise statement. MaynardClark (talk) 02:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , I was unaware there has been previous discussion on the short description here; I came across this page while adding/fixing up a bunch of short descriptions for Vital Articles. Overlong short descriptions are a common issue, and arises from people trying to fully define the topic, rather than just provide enough information to help people navigate to the right page (the main purpose of short descriptions). Per WP:SHORTDESC, the target maximum length is 40 characters; the old description was 100 and the one I changed it to reduced the length to 69, still a little overlong.
 * Flyer22Frozen, why did you cross out part of your comment above? That's perfectly accurate and is what I was doing. (Also, I'll try to remember not to ping you, but I can't always keep everyone straight, so apologies in advance if I forget in the future.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * What all true vegans share is the abstention from animal products in FOOD, but a great many practicing vegans believe that there is no veganism where there are leather or wool or silk, failure to recognize nonhuman personhood. and the (ab)use of nonhuman persons as experimental research subjects (in science and toxicology). One MIGHT think that what WAS there WAS the shorter definition BECAUSE the 'add-on' was quite succinct. MaynardClark (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "or otherwise using" covers the non-food aspects of veganism. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sdkb, I crossed it out because I was speaking of the person who added the previous short description...meaning the one before your version. The previous version matches the lead sentence more carefully closely. And length doesn't seem to have been considered in that case.
 * Sdkb, I crossed it out because I was speaking of the person who added the previous short description...meaning the one before your version. The previous version matches the lead sentence more carefully closely. And length doesn't seem to have been considered in that case.


 * As for WP:SHORTDESC, its "Content" section states, "The short description should be as brief as possible. A target of 40 characters has been suggested, but this can be exceeded when necessary." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Elimination of "the use of animal products" or "the use of non-human animals"
Flyer22 made this rollback: |referted. You tell: "sources state "animal products." but the 3 sources in reference [c] are clear that veganism is not just about not using animals as a product, but not use them in any way (also not for services, e.g. entertainment). I can live with leaving out "non-human". Timelezz (talk) 10:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Animal product article defines it as "any material derived from the body of an animal." We state in the lead of the Veganism article that veganism "is the practice of abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet, and an associated philosophy that rejects the commodity status of animals." I'm not sure why you think your edit is needed or is an improvement. Whether we state the "the use of non-human animals" or "the use of animals", it is vague and is not exactly what veganism is about since some vegans, for example, have a service dog. Is that not using an animal? It is, of course, using an animal. Veganism is not about not using animals for anything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Ethical veganism and the legal status as a religion
The section on Ethical Veganism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism#Ethical_veganism misses out a growing recognition in the courts of ethical veganism having the same protections as any religion in terms of hate speech etc. e.g. from January this year: “The judge ruled that ethical vegans should be entitled to similar legal protections in British workplaces as those who hold religious beliefs.” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50981359 So attacking people based on their ethical veganism is the same as attacking people because they are Christian, Muslim, or any other religion. Should that be part of the article? It's quite important to the topic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.35.40.230 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Importance of including the phrase "possible and practicable"
The official definition of veganism as defined by the oldest vegan society is "a 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." The current definition on Wikipedia is strong, but it misses the key "as is possible and practicable." The page would be improved by having this phrase in either the opening sentence or paragraph for the following reasons:

1) Animal use is so widespread (in the tires in our cars, in camera film, in our medication etc.) that it is hard to maintain a regular quality of life in society and 100% exclude animal products. Of course, this should not dissuade us from not exploiting animals where we easily can, such as eating plant-based food rather than animal-based food, or not wearing leather and fur etc., but the recognition should be there that vegans are not advocating for people to remove themselves from society so as to avoid animal products.

2) In addition, this phrase gives recognition to vegans from all walks of life who are all trying to reduce their consumption as much as possible. Some young vegans are threatened by their parents to eat animal products, some vegans are struggling to transition due to lack of time and energy if they are already struggling to make ends meet. While a whole-foods plant-based diet with beans and legumes is optimal for health and the wallet, it would be amiss to not recognize that it is easier to transition to a vegan diet with just beyond burgers and Miyoko's cheese which are both much more expensive than their animal counterparts (which is also in large part due to subsidies). "Possible and practicable" includes all individuals who are genuinely seeking to not harm animals, from all backgrounds, and all levels of accessibility to a transition to veganism.

3) As an active member of the vegan community, I believe this definition best represents vegans. The most prominent vegan activists use this definition, and as aforementioned, the most prominent and well-established vegan society operates on this definition. As a matter of the members of a group being empowered to define themselves, I believe this definition would be most apt as well.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MianOsumi (talk • contribs) 17:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * One of our strongest principles is that we don't rely on what the subject of an article has to say, we gather together what impartial third-party reliable sources have to say about the subject. You would have to gather references to third-party reliable sources which claim that this is what vegans practice. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2020
Please change abstaining to refraining Peyono (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Not Done Abstaining works here -- VViking Talk Edits 13:53, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Confused Animal Products section
The section "Animal Products", while containing good information and sufficient citations, is very disorganized and disjointed. Additionally it seems to have great overlap with the section "Personal Items". It doesn't read well as prose and is hard to navigate at a glance. It seems like this section was once well organized, but through small edits over time has ballooned out to the point where that structure is no longer sensible.

I think the best thing for this section would be to combine with the personal items section and rearrange the information found there into more subsections with possibly a single section header explaining broad strokes. I am currently thinking that the following section outline may be good:


 * Meat, Eggs and Dairy
 * Clothing
 * Toiletries
 * Animal Testing
 * Insect Products
 * Pet Food
 * Other Products

Along with a section at the top differentiating between dietary and ethical vegans.

This layout would group things roughly by rationale (a vegan who does or doesn't abstains from honey likely does the same for silk so they are grouped together), while roughly order sections from one extreme (lax dietary veganism) to the other (extensive ethical veganism), while still trying to keep related sections adjacent (e.g. Animal testing and toiletries). Some things would likely be mentioned in more than one section (e.g. silk in both clothing and insect products), but I think this is fine.

This reorganization makes things overall flow better and makes it easier to find information on a specific product quickly.

I will probably do this edit in a day or two but I will post this here first in case anyone watching the page has any thoughts.

AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * AquitaneHungerForce, I propose that you put this outline in your sandbox first and post a link to that here in this section. This way, we can see exactly how it will look and better form opinions on the matter. We already have an "Ethical veganism" subsection in the "Philosophy" section. I need to see what you are proposing, which will also help to weed out redundancy.


 * Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Very good idea, I had forgotten about the sandbox. I've started a version now: User:AquitaneHungerForce/sandbox.
 * (I apologize if this pings you, I could not find information on exactly what causes a ping.)
 * AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll review later. Right now, I will state that, per MOS:HEAD, headings should typically be in sentence case.


 * As for pings, see WP:Ping. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you mind explaining what changes you've made in your sandbox -- how your version differs from the article version?


 * Zefr, any thoughts? Anyone else, any thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There is minimal real content change. Most of it is reorganizing the existing content from the two sections of the article into a single section with a more readable and navigable structure.  I used the subsections outlined above sans the "Animal testing" section, since there was actually very little content there that didn't already fit into an existing section.  A few sentences I found were not useful at all I've left at the bottom of the article to not be included in the final version. I've also added a few sentences to make things flow:
 * I added the lead sentence.While vegans broadly abstain from animal products, there are many ways in which animal products are used, and different and individuals and organizations that identify with the practice of veganism may use some limited animal products based on philosophy, means or other concerns. Because no sentence in the article as it exists seemed appropriate as a lead in for the new structure.
 * I changed the lead sentence of the Meat, eggs and dairy section from:Vegans do not eat beef, pork, poultry, fowl, game, animal seafood, eggs, dairy, or any other animal productsto:Like vegetarians vegans do not eat meat (including beef, pork, poultry, fowl, game, animal seafood). The main difference between a vegan and vegetarian diet is that vegans exclude dairy products and eggs.So that it works better as a lead in and connects meat consumption to egg and dairy consumption. (I've put these together in the same section because meat had only one sentence in the original article and meat, egg and dairy non-consumption is virtually universal to those who identify as vegan)
 * I changed the sentence:Vegetables themselves, even from organic farms, may use animal manure; "vegan" vegetables use plant compost only.to:Fruits and vegetables, even from organic farms, often use animal manure as a fertilizer. This manure may be bought from factory farms and thus may be relevant to vegans for ethical or environmental reasons. "Vegan" vegetables use plant compost only.To better match the source given for the claim.
 * Other than that there may be a few very small wording changes with the intention of making things flow together. I hope that provides enough of a explanation, if there are any specific questions I can answer them too. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 17:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm reviewing the changes. Will likely get back to you tomorrow. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that your version should have a "General" subheading immediately under "Animal products" so that the initial material there is not overlooked from the table of contents. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is certainly doable. Is that common practice? It seems a bit weird to me. If that's the only thing I probably merge in the changes with that. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's common practice. It's used at various articles I watch or see while patrolling via WP:Huggle, and I added it to some of the articles I watch.


 * Yes, feel free to incorporate your changes. You are certainly correct that we don't need the "Personal items" section out there on its own, as opposed to being positioned as a subsection in the way you have it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Since it seems uncontroversial and beneficial this edit has been made live. Although further improvements may still be possible.  For the sake of making it easier to track I am going to copy what is currently the "Excess" on my sandbox page.  This may be of interest to future editors and I figure it would be best not to have it burried in the history of my sandbox page.
 * Here is everything from the article that I have not moved into any of these sections. I mostly believe that these are redundant, or otherwise not needed.  They are included here only for transparency.


 * Animal products in common use include albumen, allantoin, beeswax, blood, bone char, bone china, carmine, casein, castoreum, cochineal, elastin, emu oil, gelatin, honey, isinglass, keratin, lactic acid, lanolin, lard, rennet, retinol, shellac, squalene, tallow (including sodium tallowate), whey, and yellow grease. Some of these are chemical compounds that can be derived from animal products, plants, or petrochemicals. Allantoin, lactic acid, retinol, and squalene, for example, can be vegan. These products and their origins are not always included in the list of ingredients.


 * Some vegans will not buy woollen jumpers, silk scarves, leather shoes, bedding that contains goose down or duck feathers, pearl jewellery, seashells, ordinary soap (usually made of animal fat), or cosmetics that contain animal products. Non-vegan items acquired before they became vegan might be donated to charity or used until worn out.


 * AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 21:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Pet food section: POV pushing, false advise
. Immediate attention is needed!

The content in the section Veganism is contradictory to the content in the four sections referred to in the "see also" section hatnotes: Vegetarian and vegan dog diet, Dog food, Cat food, Cat health. There are 22 citations (includes combination footnotes) for 5 sentences, which is Citation overkill and WP:REFBOMB. I checked one citation:


 * "Nutritionally complete vegan pet diets are comparable to meat-based ones for cats and dogs. "

and the citation does NOT support the content it was hung from. The source includes many concerns about a vegan diet for pets including "caution must be exercised before drawing definitive conclusions from these results. Nevertheless, they do raise significant concerns." The "Conclusion" section of that study is full of "may", "but", "although" and other conditional words, several cautions to the health of pets on vegan diets, advisories for close monitoring by veterinarians because of the inherent nutritional deficiencies of such diets, and ends with the hope that further studies will lead to more information.

There are many policies within Wikipedia cautioning editors to not provide controversial content that could lead to readers following false advice, especially that which could lead to illness and/or death! WP:MEDRS comes to mind. (See also Cherrypicking and WP:POVPUSH.)

Please fix this section immediately, or remove it until someone has time to work on it.

— Normal Op (talk) 19:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Normal Op, so from here, you've decided to continue your focus on veganism.


 * The section you take issue with is small and notes what vegans think, and also that "this practice has been met with caution and criticism, especially regarding vegan cat diets because felids are obligate carnivores." It is a section about views. I am a WP:Med editor. I can contact WP:Med to weigh in. Or you can do it yourself and make sure that your post is neutral per WP:APPNOTE. Alexbrn is also a WP:Med editor and edits this article. As for WP:MEDRS? Whether or not Wikipedia's strict medical sourcing guideline, or concern for medical information, extends to non-human/veterinary topics has been addressed before. But I suppose it can be revisited. Either way, there is absolutely no urgent matter here.


 * Don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Please do get the WikiProject Medicine editors to weigh in... especially if they know anything about animals. Even better, maybe some of them are veterinarians. Funny that you should accuse me of only looking at one citation, when you seem to have focused on only one part I wrote and missed THE FIRST SENTENCE where I point out that FOUR OTHER WIKI ARTICLES CONTRADICT THIS ARTICLE. Normal Op (talk) 04:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me to an article I'm obviously watching. Again, you can contact WP:Med yourself. We can also wait for Alexbrn to weigh in. But don't start tag-bombing this article because it includes views that differ from yours. I don't tolerate gaming the system/wikilawyering, just like I don't tolerate activism on Wikipedia in either direction. Your "you seem to have focused on only one part I wrote" line makes no sense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That section is badly WP:OVERCITEd. By definition, anything that is "nutritionally complete" is going be ... well, nutritionally complete, so it's kind of a nothing statement which begs the question. The claim is sourced to PMID 27657139, which is in a MDPI journal and so suspect: I'd remove it and make sure our content is in WP:SYNC between articles using more reputable sources - though from a quick look it's not immediately obvious what these might be. Alexbrn (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This entry does not highlight to readers that, in the United Kingdom, the RSPCA has identified that the imposition of a vegan diet upon cats constitutes animal cruelty and may lead to prosecution. https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/cats/diet This needs to be addressed immediately.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.213.196 (talk) 14:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Veganism in animals
I just added a two sentences about vegan animals to the History section (see below). I'm not sure that's the best place for it, though. Maybe those sentences should be expanded upon, and then moved to a separate section? If yes, then the beginning of the article should make clear that it deals mainly with human veganism, and refer to the section on nonhuman animals. My sentences: "Many animal species eat exclusively vegan (herbivore) diets. For example, stomach contents of bison were found to be entirely vegan in present times and at least 8,000 years ago . In humans,... " Trimton (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trimton, and I reverted that as WP:Undue. It's also WP:Fringe. Non-human animals are not usually stated to be vegan. Veganism is a human practice. This is not the Herbivore article. I suggest you try to gain WP:Consensus for this addition and to not WP:Edit war over it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, as made clear in the lead of the Herbivore article, a herbivore is an animal anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating plant material. That is not veganism, no matter that a source you included above uses the words "vegan food source" and "vegan diet" to refer to the diet of bison. Veganism is a dietary choice, and often also a philosophy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

___

Can nonhuman animals count as vegan? Yes, because they match the definition. Anyone that eats only vegan food is vegan, whether they're a human baby, human adult or bison. Now you might say, but animals cannot reason about veganism" - human babies can't either, and their nutrition is well discussed in this article. Classifying consumption patterns (vegan/omnivore) should have nothing to do with the ability to reason.

Purely herbivore animals match the consumption pattern given in the opening sentence of the article: "abstaining from the use of animal products, particularly in diet". So why is the article constrained to humans?

You seem to reason that animals cannot be vegan because veganism it a "dietary choice". Do you mean that animals do not choose what they eat? I'd say all land animals choose what they eat. You often hear "pigs are omnivores". But even pigs most likely have preferences and, given a choice, choose only a subset of all foods that they are anatomically able to digest. Almost all other animals have narrow diets.

Now veganism has two aspects: (1) consumption patterns and (2) their (ethical, nutritional, other) justification. Granted, wild bison do not "reject the commodity status of animals", and do not have philosophy. But this does not mean that, just like human babies, they cannot be included in the article. Trimton (talk) 09:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Trimton, you are engaging in WP:Orginal research. You added material on non-human animals to the History section as though sources describe veganism as having begun with non-human animals. No, it began with humans. It is a dietary practice -- as in a conscious practice by humans -- that is often accompanied by a philosophy. That has nothing to do with the topic of non-human animals who are herbivores. So there is no "In humans", like you added. It is "only humans". Non-human animals are not selecting a diet in the way that humans are selecting it, and what they eat is often based on what their bodies allow them to eat. Again, being a herbivore is about being anatomically and physiologically adapted to eating plant material. Does taste play a part in what many non-human animals eat? Obviously. But sources that define veganism are clear. The Vegan Society states, "Veganism is 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 animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." This Healthline source states that veganism is "a way of living that attempts to exclude all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty, be it from food, clothing, or any other purpose, on the parts of non-human animals." That is all human-oriented. No non-human animal is "attempt[ing] to exclude all forms of animal exploitation and cruelty." And the only reason, besides length, we do not use the Vegan Society's definition for the lead is that dietary vegans exist and there is consensus against limiting the definition in that way. But non-human animals are not defined as dietary vegans.


 * You stated that I "seem to reason that animals cannot be vegan because veganism i[s] a 'dietary choice'". What I reason is that while herbivore may at times be used interchangeably with vegetarian or vegan, being a herbivore is a different topic. Otherwise, we wouldn't have both a Herbivore article and a Veganism article (and Vegetarianism article). And if we define "veganism" to mean "does not use animal products", like you recently tried to do? What academic sources state that non-human animals use animal products? That they are avoiding them? I'd rather not pull out numerous sources that clearly define veganism as a human dietary practice and a vegan as a person. Also, the sources you cited above state "vegan diet", not "these bison are vegan."


 * As for "babies who are vegans"? That is a matter of adults pushing a diet on beings who have not chosen that diet. It's not like the babies consciously chose to be vegans. And since you are comparing human babies to non-human animals, the same goes for dogs and cats. Dogs and cats do not choose a vegan diet. They are put on those diets. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The idea that any animals are vegans is WP:Fringe. That is simply not what herbivory means, nor is it how biologists think about these matters. Crossroads -talk- 16:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Definition of veganism / "abstain"
This article should describe veganism in neutral terms. Using "abstain" in the definition sounds like restraint and discomfort when that is not what veganism is. Restraint and discomfort are things linked to going vegan, and they are the main factors that keep people from going vegan, which is fine, but should not be part of the definition. Compare the French version of this article which defines veganism quite accurately and succinctly as "not using animal products". Trimton (talk) 09:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Do read the archives on this matter: Talk:Veganism/Archive 16, Talk:Veganism/Archive 16, and Talk:Veganism/Archive 16. As seen by reading them, editors have been over this extensively. It's why there is a FAQ (frequently asked questions) at the top of this talk page. That is why the WP:Hidden note that you ignored is clear that the current lead sentence is the WP:Consensus wording.


 * I don't see how you think this piece I reverted you on is neutral when we have an "Animal products" section that quite clearly states, "While vegans broadly abstain from animal products, there are many ways in which animal products are used, and different and individuals and organizations that identify with the practice of veganism may use some limited animal products based on philosophy, means or other concerns." Vegans commonly debate using honey, for example. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * To add on to that, I don't read "abstain" as implying that at all. Wikipedia, in any language, is not a reliable source (indeed, on topics not specific to a particular language, I often find other languages' coverage to be worse than ours due to having fewer editors). Crossroads -talk- 16:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are right that some vegans eat honey. But that does not establish that what vegans do is abstain. In fact, it shows that NOT all vegans abstain, since they make exceptions. If you look at common definitions of 'to abstain', including the Cambridge Dictionary and Wiktionary, then honey-eating vegans do NOT abstain. The Cambridge definition reads "to not do something, especially something enjoyable that you think might be bad". Since 'abstaining' is the wrong use both for honey-eating vegans AND for vegans that do not enjoy using animal products, the definition should NOT read abstain.


 * But you are absolutely right that the definition should factor in limits to the boycott of animal products, such as honey. Why not something like The Vegan Society definition: "exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose". The Vegan Society are the ones who originally coined the term, so they definitely have authority. Trimton -talk- 19:45, 24 October 2020‎ (UTC)
 * Taking the time to make it clear to others that you changed the title of this section.


 * You asked why not go with "exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose." Well, in the section immediately above this one, I already stated that "the only reason, besides length, we do not use the Vegan Society's definition for the lead is that dietary vegans exist and there is consensus against limiting the definition in [the way that the Vegan Society does]." Consensus has been repeatedly clear that the Vegan Society's definition is too strict, given that dietary vegans exist and are very common. Consensus has been repeatedly clear that the Vegan Society's definition does not trump the general literature on the topic. Read the archived discussions I linked to if you haven't already. Your "The Vegan Society are the ones who originally coined the term, so they definitely have authority." argument has been made times before. That is why Talk:Veganism/Sources for the dietary veganism distinction was created and is mentioned/linked in the FAQ at the top of this talk page.


 * I think that your issue with "abstain" is weak. It would be like having an issue with "avoid." Yes, of course, things like using honey and leather are debated among vegans, but that doesn't stop the fact that veganism is about abstaining from/avoiding the use of animal products. Sources typically don't state "always abstaining from"; they don't state "mostly abstaining from" or "sometimes abstaining from." They typically don't state "always avoiding"; they don't state "mostly avoiding" or "sometimes avoiding." While honey-eating vegans do not abstain from honey, they generally do not use animal products...and they are still called vegans. That exceptions exist doesn't trump how the topic is typically defined. Furthermore, I fail to see how your "not using" wording is an improvement over "abstaining from"; going by your latest post, you seem to see them as the same thing. So why even make that edit? And given how strict the Vegan Society's definition is, how is theirs any different from "abstaining from"...unless you see "as far as is possible and practicable" as some leeway?


 * I'm not going to keep debating you on this. The debate has been done over and over again. The most I will compromise with you on this is to change "the practice of abstaining from" to "the practice of avoiding." Also, the lead already addresses different types of vegans and (like I noted) things like the honey disagreement are addressed below in the article. There is no need to mention the honey or leather dispute, or other dispute, in the lead. And I did not suggest that such a thing be added to the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

section "Prejudice against vegans" / article "Vegaphobia"
Most of what is under "prejudice against vegans" on this page should be moved to the article Vegaphobia. Trimton (talk) 12:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:NEO. Also see WP:No page. The Vegaphobia article, which is small, is an unnecessary article. It should be deleted. If not deleted, it should be retitled so that it goes by the descriptive title "Discrimination against vegans." Just like "acephobia" was retitled "Discrimination against asexual people."


 * As for the section on it in the Veganism article? If the "Vegaphobia" article is retained, the section on Discrimination against vegans in the Veganism article should at least have one or two decent-sized paragraphs per WP:Summary style. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2020
The source for the British Dietetic Association's page on a vegan diet ([24]) is broken. I'd request to change the link to this one. https://www.bda.uk.com/uploads/assets/3f9e2928-ca7a-4c1e-95b87c839d2ee8a1/Plant-based-diet-food-fact-sheet.pdf Amffy (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I have marked the linked as dead, but I have not changed it to the other link you provided. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Archive exists, so it's good. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 15:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)