Talk:Veganism/Archive 5

World demographics
I've been scouring the other wikipedias and non-english websites for statistics relating to vegans. By and large, this has been a failure. There appear to be no/poor statistics for vegans (or even vegetarians) in Canada, Australia or New Zealand. Possibly useful:

Germany
Veganismus wikipedia article provides "between 250,000 and 460,500". This is cited to veganwelt.de, which itself cites no source. This number is repeated on a number of german vegan websites, but none of them (that I can understand) have an authoritative source linked or listed. This source appears to provide an estimate for vegetarians, but I could not glean any info regarding vegans. Perhaps someone with better German could do so.

Netherlands
Veganisme wikipedia article provides "16,000 vegans." Sourced to veganisme.org, which I cannot understand, but which appears to be an estimate from the Netherlands vegan society.

Russia
Веганизм wikipedia article provides a bunch of statistics, and although most of them appear to be the UK/US/Germany stats that I've listed above. But maybe someone who can read Russian would be able to find something better.

Yay. So in sum, the german citation is kind of crappy, and we might have a citation for the Netherlands. Anybody else have any luck? KellenT 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the Netherlands and Germany estimates, though they're not very good. I also added an intro paragraph stating that data is not available for most countries. The wording could probably be changed. KellenT 12:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Couple of questions
Very informative article, congratulations. I've identified one minor point that needs correcting and have a question for experts.

The minor point is that under the sub-heading "calcium" there is a reference to a study "by Oxford" with a link that directs to the English city of that name. I suspect that "University of Oxford" was meant but even that is vague and it would be more satisfactory to say "a team of X-specialism researchers at the University of Oxford".

The question is whether vegans avoid beer and wine as fish products are frequently used to clarify these beverages? If so, are other alcoholic drinks acceptable?

Thanks.

Itsmejudith 11:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about the Oxford ref, but I don't know enough about that particular statement to change it.
 * On the alcohol front, yes, vegans would avoid beers and wines (and ciders etc...) that contain or use animal products in their production. There are plenty of vegan friendly beers though, for example any that follow the German purity laws, and quite a few lagers are also. Also, many cheap wines are vegan (Blossom Hill in the UK is vegan AFAIK). And there are a few cider manufacturers which produce vegan ciders (Thatchers, Stowford Press, etc...).
 * If you are in the UK, this site is a good resource for finding out whether things are vegan or not.-Localzuk(talk) 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, pretty much any beer that follows Germany's Reinheitsgebot is vegan, as by law it can only contain water, hops, barley, and yeast. As for non-beer/wine/cider beverages, some distilled spirits are filtered through bone char, which obviously disqualifies it - there are some lists of hard alcohol at Localzuk's link.  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, the Manx brewed beers from Bushy's are vegan as well (just thought I'd mention that as I'm from there :D), as they follow (and exceed) the old (now repealed) Manx purity laws (which were similar to the newer German laws).-Localzuk(talk) 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I question the quality of this article based on the Good article criteria. For that reason, I have listed the article at Good article review. Issues needing to be address are listed there and you are invited to comment. Regards, Tarret 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Review is here: Good article review KellenT 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am delisting the article based on the issues raised at GAR. However, as the discussion was not very well attended, I have added detailed comments of my own on what I perceive as points in which the article does not at present meet the good article criteria. These can be found at the archived discussion. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. I appreciate that it is extremely difficult to achieve NPOV in articles on topics like this, but think it is a very important criterion for good articles, since the GA process is here endorsing compliance not just with a guideline, but policy. Good luck improving the article. Geometry guy 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the intensive pig farm
Hello, my English is not really good but i have some qestions about this picture. Has this Picture ,in this article an effect like a propaganda? Is it licensed to take it over, with the same text to the german veganism article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.211.12 (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That;s exactly what it is. Propaganda. Why not show a photo of sustenance hunting? 59.167.144.15 (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits must be justified
Byproducts are part of avoidance, animal right issues are moral issues and the nutritional statement is corrected now from a medical point of view. Please don't edit without justification. Jenny Len ☤ 14:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, everyone here edits with justification, so I don't understand what that means. I restored the sentence in the intro about supplementation after thinking it over.  It more carefully summarizes the content of the rest of the article about supplementation, and does not take sides on the contentious issue of the relative health of vegans vs. vegetarians vs. omnivores.  We do, however, need to have a better cite at the end of this sentence, and I will look for one in the near future.  Cheers, Skinwalker 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I sourced the supplementation sentence to this position paper by the American Dietetic Association. The paper specifically lists each nutrient mentioned in the sentence in the context of veganism, not vegetarianism, and says that vegans should supplement.  Comments?  Skinwalker 16:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good. KellenT 10:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; just read this after the fact. I made an informative edit about veganism in French which caused a lot of confusion amongst some of us in Canada when it came to dietary needs. Just trying to avoid international confusion. This is, however, common knowledge, so if we feel we need to link to a translation page let me know. I believe the French "vegetalien" page is accurate. Cpt ricard 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

UICW-report moved to Environmental vegetarianism
Sorry about my mistake. I wrongfully placed the report due to my confusion between veganism and vegetarianism. I moved it to environmental vegetarianism; so note that if you see its removal, it wasn't banditry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.245.165.22 (talk) 08:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Paragraphs needing work
Here are some sections I think could use some attention: I will eventually work on some of these myself, but perhaps other editors can get to them first. KellenT 12:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Jarvis bit should be rewritten to give more context if his is indeed a notable viewpoint, and the part about Singer after it should be properly cited, if there at all.
 * The Davis/Matheny paragraphs should be condensed into a single paragraph. The Davis part has undue weight in my opinion, since it's a discussion of a hypothetical agricultural model.
 * Both intro paragraphs in "Health" seem like fragments and the second one makes no direct connection to veganism.
 * The whole "Benefits" section is fragmented and could use a rewrite to make a coherent statement
 * The child abuse/deaths section of "pregnancies and children" should choose between giving the facts of each case or making only more general statements, not giving a general description then a very specific fact then back to a general description.
 * The UN paragraph and Systems Analysis paragraphs of "Environmentalism" do not make assertions tied to veganism.


 * Please do not touch the ethical concerns section, especially the material concerning Davis and Matheny. You originally eliminated the criticism section and merged this material into ethical concerns, only to now make the claim that it is "undue weight" and "hypotethical", obviously clearing the way for the elimination of all criticism of veganism.  Ethics is, by its very nature theoretical, so your argument doesn't hold any weight.  Davis gives an example of applied ethics in the field of environmental ethics, and as an animal scientist he has the authority to make these statements; Davis' opinions were not only published in a scholarly journal by were also presented at a conference. Matheny doesn't have the qualifications that Davis does, nor is he a scientist, but we've allowed him to stay in the article as a good faith effort to represent a minority POV; in the discipline of nutrition, veganism is the minority POV.  It is not undue weight to quote an animal scientist about the agricultural ramifications of veganism.  More importantly, the recent GA review recommended delisting this article due to the absence of criticism; please don't prove them correct.  There is a plethora of criticism that does not appear in this article, such as that made by food writer Nina Planck in her controversial "Death by Veganism" piece in the New York Times, as well as the criticism of veganism by sports nutritionists as found in Wolinsky et al.  If you think this article would be better served by a separate Criticism of veganism article, with the appropriate "Criticism" header and summary subsection, I'll go ahead and create it. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 08:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No comment on the Davis/Matheny issue, but the "Death by Veganism" article is referenced, and there is a large paragraph on vegan parents starving their children. Someone at GAR also mentioned incorporating Anthony Bourdain's criticism of vegans into the article, which I think is possible if we avoid some of his more inflammatory rhetoric (e.g. comparing vegans to Hezbollah).  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Kellen, I noticed that you reverted almost all of User:Jennylen's contributions, a scientist who has expertise in the field of medicine and ethics. Is there a particular reason that you feel her edits are not up to par, or does one have to be a practicing vegan in good membership standing with PETA in order to edit this article?  There appears to be a bit of WP:OWN going on here. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 09:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I edit the article, and I've expressed fairly strong anti-vegan sentiment on this talk page in the past. Per your comment about JennyLen's expertise, and after the Essjay mess, I would really, really prefer that we don't appeal to editor's "real-life authority" unless that editor is willing to post a verifiable CV.  Which I would never ask someone to do.  This article will (rightly) stand or fall on the strength of its references.  As far as I'm concerned, her contributions are welcome if they're properly sourced and conform to policy, which most (but not all) of them have.  Cheers, Skinwalker 13:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pinpointing exactly where sources are needed will help, comments on my contributuions requesting sources I missed are very welcome, if you let me know I will either source or delete or rephrase as needed Jenny Len ☤ 13:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The bits I removed/reverted/reworded:
 * "moral" vs. "ethical" -> perhaps this is just stylistic, but vegan orgs seem to use "ethics" over "morals", also "moral" to me has a more religious, there-is-one-truth-alone tone.
 * I reverted a change to a quote. It should be obvious that you shouldn't change quotes.
 * I removed a totally unnecessary parenthetical "laco-vegetarianism". This is also an incorrect interpretation of "dairy products," which includes eggs, as they are historically also produced on dairies. Also reverted "products resulting from insect labor" back to "insect products" which actually accurately represents the issue as being that of products made from animals rather than strictly from the work of animals. And finally reverted the header from "Some statistics" back to "Demographics" which accurately represents the content of that paragraph.
 * I reverted another changed quote. It's a quote. Don't change it.
 * I removed the addition of an "arguments for and against" header. This mischaracterized the content.
 * I reverted changes to the original line of "animal products" section, to which a bunch of unnecessary qualifications had been added. "Human use" covers all of the more detailed specifications, in a clearer way.
 * I reworked some changes made to the "eating disorders" section, keeping a more condensed form rather than reverting to the previous version.
 * I reverted removal of the crate picture as consensus seems to have been to keep it, plus it was removed in a sloppy way which broke references in the article.
 * I reverted poorly written changes to the "specific nutrients" section. You choose which is better: "A vegan diet must, however, be well planned for containing all necessary nutritional elements, a subject which is not less true in any other type of diet. Lack of planning in a vegan diet may lead to nutritional defficiencies as i. e. vitamin B" or "Poorly planned vegan diets, however, increase the risk of deficiency in nutrients such vitamin B"
 * I reverted the addition of "through extremism examples," which honestly just made no sense.
 * I reverted a change to the introductory sentence. The intro sentence is based upon the Vegan Society's definition of veganism (I'd prefer it to be a quote, but others in the past did not), which is pretty clear about the aim of veganism. The changes were helpful only in obfuscating this. "excludes the use of animals for ___ or any other purpose" is better than "excludes the use of animals or animals derived products for ___ or any other similar purpose" in my reckoning.
 * There you go. My justifications for changes are also included in the edit summaries, if you take the time to read them. KellenT 13:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ethical and moral
It seems that the source says ethical related with commitment in page 2 and moral related with convictions in page 17 so both should be under the same citation. Thank you for calling my attention to that Jenny Len ☤ 12:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's fine to say both ethical and moral, I think. My reasoning was that this article discusses Peter Singer's views on utilitarianism at length, which is based on how to make "correct" decisions (e.g. ethics) and not the decisions themselves (e.g. morals).  Cheers, Skinwalker 12:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, sorry I didn't see that. Anyhow, like this we cover it I think . Thanks for the explanation, it helps Jenny Len ☤ 13:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why remove picture of suffering farm animals?
It suited well with the article and subject. This page is in desperate need of at least one of those pictures that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect. More people than vegans are aware of animal cruelty, so a realistic picture can hardly be considered propaganda. Whoever removed it, put it back where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.113.226.96 (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

GA reassessment result
This article has lost its GA status. The article itself hasn't changed much since the original granting of GA, but issues were raised about its content. Here is the GA reassessment discussion, which includes specific concerns. KellenT 11:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to worry. I have faith in your editorial abilities, and I'm sure you'll have this up to FA in no time. Give it another go. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I closed the discussion and tried to add some specific concerns; I commented further above. For FA, the main additional challenge is probably comprehensiveness, since the article is quite well cited. Apart from more history, I could imagine FA might require more on non-dietary aspects of veganism, such as cultural aspects. Again, good luck. Geometry guy 17:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Veganism and food Supplement advertisement wiki
almost non of the vitamins in supplements are absorbed, vegans also have an increased risk of kidney/liver damage, also a increased risk of Thrombosis which can lead to strokes. before you change about the way you eat you should talk to any "real" Nutritionist with masters or a PhD degree, as without any professional help you can kill yourself (as the internet isn't a reliable enough a way to find these things out.)Markthemac 08:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assertions without citations; the vegan advocacy organizations have doctors and nutritionists who are making the recommendations which are cited here. KellenT 11:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

but not health concerns, which should be displayed. Markthemac 00:18, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Claims of vitamins not being absorbed when you take them using competing method X are a common canard of questionable nutrition statements. If you can provide a reliable source, preferably from an aforementioned nutritionist, that documents this we can talk about including it, but I'm skeptical that one exists.  Cheers, Skinwalker 01:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

remove French bit?
This part was recently added to the article:
 * In the French language a végétalien is someone who practices a vegan diet, while a vegan is someone who practices a vegan lifestyle, specifically referring to the use of animal products in a non-dietary form (i.e. leather, wool, etc.).

While this is moderately interesting, it seems like a bit of trivia rather than something that fits well within the article. I am leaning towards removing it unless a better place can be found for it. Opinions? KellenT 04:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed this. KellenT 12:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

intro change
I have a problem with this edit, which changes:
 * Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

to:
 * Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animal derived products for food, clothing, or any other purpose.

I previously reverted this change, but it has been added back. The previous version was derived from the Vegan Society definition of veganism (although a direct quote would be better, imo). The problem with the change is (a) "use of animals" includes animal products (b) "use of animals" is clearer than "use of animal derived products" as it more directly locates the reason for veganism. The added citation does nothing for me, and doesn't really support a distinction between "use of animals" and "animal products." Finally, I object to the edit summary of "corrected definition and sourced" because the definition was blatantly not wrong to begin with. KellenT 05:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be changing this back unless anybody else cares to comment. KellenT 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm, well if I wanted to be churlish about it, I'd say the second definition would allow a vegan to consume whole animals, but not any "product" (ill-defined term) made from them. Please change it back to the correct definition, by all means.  This user had a habit of making smug edit summaries, IMO.  Cheers, Skinwalker 23:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Nutrient Deficiencies
Please excuse my previous changes (repeated changes) as I am brand new to Wikipedia. This is my first attempt to edit an article and I may have broken protocol. My intent is to alter slightly the way in which the potential for vitamin/nutrient deficiencies in a vegan diet is worded. Currently, by saying that "vegan diets can be deficient...," the implication is that there is some diet (the assumption being the standard American diet, or the diet of the majority) that is not deficient in vitamins/nutrients. That means that a vegan diet, when compared with the standard American diet, can also deficient in cholesterol, saturated fat, among other undesirable things. It is true that a person on a vegan diet should be aware of vitamin B12, iodine and other nutrients...as should everyone. I propose that where worded: "However, a vegan diet can be deficient..." it should be changed to "Just as any diet can be deficient in nutrients, an unplanned vegan diet may be deficient in..." (CraigWenner 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC))
 * There allready was a debate and this version is the result of the compromise. The fact is that potential deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of a vegan diet. If you follow the Standard American Diet, you are not at risk for this particular problem; You are however at risk from e.g. excessive cholesterol.CyrilleDunant 05:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. You'll have to excuse me for not being present during the first debate, but the potential for a deficiency in nutrients is a characteristic of all diets.  The potential deficiency in certain nutrients is characteristic of unplanned vegan diets (for example if all you're eating is bagels with peanut butter), but not of a well balanced or educated vegan diet.  If by "particular problem" you mean that on the Standard American Diet you are not at risk for nutrient deficiencies, then I have to disagree.  Americans on the standard diet may be prone to certain deficiencies as well (e.g. calcium, iodine, vitamin C, vitamin E, fiber, folate, magnesium).  Nutritional deficiencies have nothing to do with being vegan or otherwise, they have to do with eating well.  The way the article is presently written, ("vegan diets can be deficient...therefore encouraged to take supplements") it implies that if you are not deficient and not taking supplements, then you most likely are not a vegan.  This is bogus!  If anyone is deficient in anything, they need to eat better (barring extenuating circumstances where supplements may be needed). (CraigWenner 23:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Your proposal weasels around the fact that vegans have a higher likelyhood of being deficient in these nutrients than other groups. Vegans are more likely to be deficient in B12 than omnivores, vegans in certain countries are more likely to be deficient in iodine, vegans are more likely to be deficient in calcium, vegans in northern latitudes are more likely to be deficient in vitamin D, vegans are more likely to be deficient in omega-3's. Pointing out that other diets are deficient in other things is actually irrelevant to this article. KellenT 07:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Point well taken with regard to weasel words in my proposed change. But I do still feel that the statement "However, vegan diets can be low in levels of calcium, iodine, and vitamins B12 and D. Vegans are encouraged to take dietary supplements to remedy this" found in the very beginning of the article is misleading.  It implies that the remedy to a particular deficiency cannot be to alter the diet appropriately rather than having to resort to a supplement.  I feel that saying something like: "Vegans are encouraged to plan their diet appropriately or to take dietary supplements to remedy this" would more accurately express the options for avoiding deficiencies.  Supplements are useful, but they are not necessary. (CraigWenner 00:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC))

any vegan who eats properly with the vegan food groups and goes to a doctor for a blood analysis test can verify that the doctors are always impressed by the high levels of calcium, iron, b12, and iodine. The last time I got a blood analysis test my calcium levels exceeded the average levels. When you intake enough calcium, healthy bone structure is maintained through weight-bearing exercises that shoot electrical impulses through the bone tissues adhering the calcium to the osteoblasts. I have been vegan for 9 years and it disturbs me that the best advice you give to people seeking out how vegans get calcium is to eat fortified soy products??? what about broccoli?? vegetarians who drink milk are usually calcium deficient because of the protein-induced hypocalciurea - where excessive protein causes a pH imbalance that binds the sulfur bonds from milk proteins with unstable calcium cations from the milk and then the acid excess takes calcium from the blood which gets replaced by the osteoblasts in the bones. After milk consumption, the body urinates out more calcium than it tried to digest. Why cant we tell people to eat leafy greens or broccoli or lentils? or brown rice or grain? how do other herbivorous mammals get their calcium? this veganism site needs accurate information. and fortified foods are never recommended over natural sources.


 * The recommendations you are criticizing are made by vegan advocacy organizations. KellenT 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles worth discussing
This article lost GA status (unfairly, IMO - drive-by reviewing is bad) due in part to a lack of criticism. Today I ran across a few articles that I want to suggest we include in the "Resources and the Environment" section.

The basic gist is that a diet with a limited meat and/or dairy intake (still far less that the standard American diet, FWIW) may actually be more environmentally friendly than a diet restricted only to vegetables. This is due to land-use concerns - it is more efficient (on a calorie-per-area basis) to use marginally fertile land for livestock than vegetables. The conclusion that the Slate article then draws is that if you live around poor farming land, then it is better to eat locally rather than import large quantities of vegetables - the transportation of which leads to higher CO2 emissions. I'd like to see about integrating these references into the environment section and adding a short paragraph, but since this could be a contentious change I thought I'd bring it to the talk page first. Cheers, Skinwalker 15:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is interesting and should be added. Unfortunately, neither of these are ideal sources; better would be the article referenced by both, which unfortunately, is not freely available. KellenT 13:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Remove globalize template
It would be nice to come to consensus about whether or not the 'demographics' section indeed needs to be tagged with the "globalize" template. There simply isn't any data which we can cite to fulfill the ideal requirements for removing the "globalize" template. As such, it's not a failing of this article or wikipedia in general that we can't provide a wider view, and the template is therefore meaningless in this context. I would suggest we remove it and point to this decision in the future if the template is added. KellenT 14:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think you've exhausted all avenues of research into global statistics, and the article summarizes all the data that's out there.  Perhaps we should out a "commented out" comment at the start of the demographics section pointing to the numerous discussions of this topic and stating that there just isn't data about veganism prevalence in most of the world.  Cheers, Skinwalker 14:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Vitamin B12
"In April 2007 MIT biologists claimed that they had found a symbiotic relationship between soil and roots, with B12 being present in soil attached to roots (which includes the soil around root vegetables, such as parsnips or carrots) ."

This paragraph has been deleted. One can obtain vitamin B12 from "dirty"/lightly washed raw organic carrots? Seems highly relevant to me. nirvana2013 16:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's been deleted because the article cited has nothing to do with veganism. It discusses a discovery around B12 synthesis, but says nothing about human absorbtion of that B12. Further, the "dirty"/lightly washed B12 absorption theory isn't supported by any research. An older revision of this page had this section (which I intend to replace):
 * Tempeh, seaweed, spirulina, organic produce, soil on unwashed vegetables, and intestinal bacteria have not been shown to be reliable sources of B for the dietary needs of vegans.
 * The references cite a Vegan Outreach page, which concludes:
 * Unless uncleaned, organic produce is shown to lower MMA levels, it is unjustified to claim that B12 can be obtained in such a manner, or to claim with certainty that humans have ever relied on it as a source of B12.
 * Only until organic foods are chosen randomly from markets and grocery stores throughout the country (or world) and are consistently shown to decrease MMA levels will someone not be taking a considerable risk in relying on organic foods for B12. This article documents many vegans suffering from B12 deficiency, and it is safe to assume that many of them consumed significant amounts of organic foods.
 * So basically, there's no justification for including such a paragraph in this article, though it is relevant to Vitamin B12. KellenT 17:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia editing. I wish to re-arrange the sentence found under the heading 'Vitamin B12': "Vegetarians who were previously meat eaters may preserve, up to 30 years, stores of Vit B12 in their bodies." to "Vegetarians who were previously meat eaters may preserve stores of Vit B12 in their bodies for up to 30 years." which I feel flows better gramatically. I have two questions about this change: 1) Is it considered a 'minor edit' to re-arrange a grammatically poor sentence without (I believe) altering the message/content? Yes I have read Help:Minor edit, but I'd like some more clarity. 2) I edited this sentence and previewed it (without changing the subsequent tag), but the reference changed from 69 to 1. Why? Thanks for your time stscross 11:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and rearrange the sentence. I feel this would qualify as a minor edit. The reference number shown in the preview of a section of an article is often different to that seen when the whole article is viewed - don't worry about this, it's just a consequence of the section being previewed in isolation from the rest of the document.--Michig 11:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Too much on vegetarianism
I found the article focused too much on the practice of not eating meat, not the practice of not consuming or using any animal products. For eg. the ethics section focuses on why vegans may choose not to eat meat. I would like to know why vegans choose not to eat any animal product.

220.245.158.49 (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition
Really, do we need 18 paragraphs, 9 sections, to talk about Vegan nutrition, outside of the Vegan nutrition article? I dare say this section of Veganism is almost as long as the main article itself! When people constantly complain about the length of this article, is there any excuse to have so much information here? A line along the lines of "Certain vitamins and minerals, such as Iodine, B12, and Calcium, may be lacking in a Vegan diet," or a line talking about nutrients and mention those three specifically as examples. Honestly, this is just a waste of space, all this information clearly goes on the Vegan nutrition page.  Vert e t Noir talk 09:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The vegan nutrition article should be nuked. It was split off of this article as an attempt at cleanup. KellenT 09:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Soy Consumption
I added a paragraph stating, as succinctly as I knew how to put it, that many vegans rely on soy as their main source of protein. A user called Keller removed it, saying that it was not appropriate for this article. I disagree, and have therefore restored the paragraph. Web-sites that evangelize for vegan diets almost always push people toward tofu and other soy meat substitutes, and I cited one, chooseveg.com, as a reference. If vegan diets often rely on soy, then the debate about the safety of soy consumption deserves to be noted on this page. I also cited a video by a nutrition author, which Keller seems to feel is an inappropriate source. I don't understand why a video by an author is a less authoritative reference than the author's book, which I just as easily could have cited. If Keller feels this is an inappropriate source, then I suggest he/she improve my contribution by finding another source. If he/she is, like many vegans, eager to downplay the risks of soy because it's a vegan staple, then I suggest he/she pound sand.--ManicBrit 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Many people on non vegan diets eat soy too, should we have paragraphs in every diet article that can possibly include soy? Many vegans do not eat soy at all, it's not a requirement of the diet and therefore this section is inappropriate. You also appear to be using the word 'many' as if it was 'most'. The place to mention the health concerns of soy is on the soy article page itself. Muleattack 00:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Your sources are poor at best and the dangers of soy consumption belong in the article on soy, not here. KellenT 08:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Kellen:

I don't expect an ideologue to adhere to NPOV perfectly, but you've failed to defend your position. My sources are quite clear - chooseveg.com is a resource for vegans planning their diets, and it advocates tofu and other soy products as three of the five main protein sources vegans should use. The other source is a lecture from an MD who authored a book about healthy eating. You can consider these sources "poor" because they don't conform to your point of view, and you can attempt to police this page and others associated with it in order to give a more pro-vegan slant, but I don't see how you can call these sources "poor." I am going to restore a section to the "Precautions" section that refers readers to the "Soy Controversy" article. --ManicBrit (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Attacking me as an ideologue with no basis is unnecessary. Just citing the front page of a vegetarian advocacy site isn't enough to establish that "some vegan and vegetarian diets recommend eating soy-based meat substitutes such as tofu and textured vegetable protein as primary protein sources." For example, it's easy to cite the vegan society page on protein in which they recommend peas, beans, lentils, wheat, oats, rice, barley, buckwheat, millet, pasta, bread, brazils, hazels, almonds, cashews, sunflower, pumpkin, sesame in addition to soya products as sources of protein. Your sources doesn't directly support the statement you added to the article; and this is what I mean by "poor." KellenT 20:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

MuleAttack:

The contribution never said that all vegans eat soy, just that many do, which was supported by a link to a vegan website. The paragraph itself also noted that soy has been added to many food products in the US, and is not unique to a vegan diet. However, the prevalence of soy in vegan diets is well-established, and someone researching veganism should know that information before they log on to some site like chooseveg.com and start downing tofu in the same quantity as they previously downed meat. You are quite free to add a counterpoint that some vegan diets do not include soy and that lentils and nuts can suffice. That would be a valid contribution that would enhance the article. Removing the soy information detracts for the article. --ManicBrit (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Other editors, please weigh in on this subject. If there are no other responses, I'm going to remove the section. KellenT 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section regarding the risks of soy consumption is appropriate in this article. I am for removing it. Djk3 (talk) 07:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This canard about Soy damaging "the brain" or "sexual health" comes up frequently. Specific to manic's edit, it is unsourced.  On that alone it should be excluded from the article.  If soy damages health, someone please tell this to the 2 billion asians who eat it daily.  Abe Froman (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Harris Poll
The following seems to be a rather useless indicator:


 * A 2006 poll conducted by Harris Interactive in the United States listed specific foods and asked respondents to indicate which items they never eat, rather than asking respondents to self-identify. The survey found that of the 1,000 adults polled 1.4% never eat meat, poultry, fish, seafood, dairy products, or eggs and were therefore essentially vegan in their eating habits. The survey also found that about 1.4% of men and 1.3% of women have vegan diets.[6]

The problem there is that unless you are actively seeking to avoid certain things, you probably pay very little attention to whether eggs or butter were used in the bread you ate, or whether the soup you had was based in Chicken or Beef stock, or whether the Caesar Salad you had used an anchovy-based salad dressing. I find it quite implausible to infer from the data that 1.4% of all Americans make an effort to avoid eating bread and crackers. The poll isn't an effective way to determine the real numbers for vegans, because most people don't read labels as closely as vegetarians, vegans, or people with food allergies do. The passage seems misleading and suited for removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.172.224 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The inference is made by the researchers. I agree that it's not an ideal poll, but it's one of very few polls done about vegans. As such, it belongs in this article. KellenT 13:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Grammar, syntax, usage, thought
The first sentence, "Veganism (also strict or pure vegetarianism) is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose," is incorrect. A philosophy cannot "seek" anything. Nor can a lifestyle. A person who holds a philosophy, or practices a lifestyle, can seek. But a philosophy itself, cannot. Veganism is a way of life (never use a "big word," or fancy schmancy word, such as philosphy, or lifestyle, when a "small word," such as way of life, will do. Following this rule makes for better communication, with more people. Veganism is a way of life that involves not using animals, or animal products, for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, or any other purpose, as far as is reasonably possible; and vegans hold that in this day and age, in the industrialized world, food, clothing and shelter can easily be acquired without relying on animals or animal products. The first sentence needs to be changed. Nomenclator (talk) 01:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
"Usually" pronounced ?

This is the way I personally heard Jay Dinshah, the founder of the American Vegan Society, pronounce the word, in 1967, and he remarked about it being the correct pronunciation. He personally corrected me when I pronounced the word incorrectly. The correctness of pronunciation is determined by authoritative declaration, and not by repeated experimentation, repeated observation, and accumulation of empirical evidence, which is the way the correctness of scientific facts are determined. If Jay Dinshah said oranges had more sugar than grapefruits, I might want to measure sugar levels. If Jay Dinshah said vegan was pronounced, then is the correct pronunciation. The sentence should be changed to read that "correct pronunciation is . --Nomenclator (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed more or less, and changed. KellenT 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Health section cleanup
I cleaned up the B12 section, and removed one sentence which read:
 * Clinical evidence of Vitamin B12 deficiency is uncommon given to the fact that the human body preserves B12, using it without destroying the substance.

This is false. This had the following two references, which are themselves useful, but which contradict the statement. Perhaps they will be useful to someone else.
 * (found here)
 * (found here)


 * This is a quote that comes from another source, but was probably removed in a prior bout of editing. I have a problem removing it, because the sources used to do so are primary sources.  Not all Wikipedians are Doctors.  Abe Froman (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I believed this to be false based on misunderstanding "clinical" versus "sub-clinical" deficiency as noted below. I support re-introducing some text about this in the article, with an appropriate source. The above two sources do not support the statement as-is. The vegan society B12 page here could also be used as a source. KellenT 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Woops, here. KellenT 11:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed:
 * A study, published in the June 1 2007 issue of Cancer Research, suggests that while higher dietary intakes of B6, B9, and B12 are associated with reduced rates of pancreatic cancer for people at or below normal body weight, some people who received these nutrients from multivitamin pills had an increased risk of developing the disease.

Which is interesting, but only tangentially relevant to the health of vegans.

Later, I also reworded, but then decided on removing the part about Dr. Spock from the "pregnancies and children section". This read:
 * Dr. Benjamin Spock advocated a plant-based diet for children, writing that "children who grow up getting nutrition from plant foods rather than meats have a tremendous health advantage. They are less likely to develop weight problems, diabetes, high blood pressure and some forms of cancer."

The previously cited source was not very good, and didn't actually indicate that he "said" something (which the original text said he did). The new source above is from the NY Times, but the quote actually comes from this AP article, not the NY times one. I removed this section because it was improperly under the "precautions" header and I didn't have a good place for it at the time. Please re-add it in an appropriate place if you're feeling toasty. KellenT 19:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says:

The latest edition of Dr. Benjamin Spocks Baby and Child Care was released last month, and it contained a surprising turnaround. Dr. Spock, who died at the age of 94 just before the new version of his book was published, advised no cows milk or any other dairy products for children. Mothers milk, not cows milk, is natures perfect food for babies under one year, according to Dr. Spock. And once a child is over the age of two years, he advised a vegetarian dieteliminating meat and poultry and cutting down on fish. We now know that there are harmful effects of a meaty diet, Dr. Spock wrote with his co-author Stephen J. Parker, M.D. Children can get plenty of protein and iron from vegetables, beans, and other plant foods that avoid the fat and cholesterol that are in animal products.

This supports the quote as is.

Abe Froman (talk) 03:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it supports my re-written version. My main objection is that it was in the wrong place in the article, and I didn't have a good place for it. Perhaps it fits in the 'benefits' section, but that's marginal. KellenT 11:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed:
 * Public Health specialists have been increasingly alerting about the importance of diet in the prevention of chronic disease. Advice obtained from the Committee On Medical Aspects of Food and Nutrition Policy (COMA) in the UK, specifies that to increase the intake of fruits and vegetables while avoiding high intakes of red and processed meat may reduce the risk markers for chronic diseases such as cancer.

As this has no direct connection to veganism. KellenT 01:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Part of this organization's mission is promoting a vegetarian diet, so claiming it is "tangentially" related to veganism is like saying Santa Claus is tangentially related to Christmas. Abe Froman (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed:
 * Some vegans feel additional health benefits are gained by eating food with minimal levels of substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to intensively farmed animals in countries where this is legal. Because they are similar to human hormones, growth-promoters such as anabolic steroids that are used in cattle farming in America may affect fetal and childhood development.  Due to this uncertainty, the use of such growth promoters is illegal in the European community.

As nothing cited actually shows a connection to veganism. There's a page of links about BGH, 3 citations about how hormones may affect human health, and one citation about legality. There are links to vegan pages on the BGH page, but nothing more. KellenT 02:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

vegan athletics
I removed:
 * Athletic achievements are also used as an argument about the nutritional benefits of a vegan diet. Vegan athletes compete in a variety of sports, including powerlifting, bodybuilding, martial arts, and long distance running. Multiple Olympic gold medallist Carl Lewis has stated that he became vegan in 1990 and achieved his "best year of track competition" in 1991 when he ate a vegan diet.

I think this section is rather poor. Yes, there are vegan athletes. There are two sources; one lists very few vegans (though many vegetarians) and the second lists around 20 athletes. Neither of these sources make claims about veganism leading to greater athletic achievement. Yes, Carl Lewis is/was vegan. So what? Without similar claims, by vegan advocacy organizations or a larger number of vegan athletes, I count this as anecdotal evidence. KellenT 01:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom Regan and veganism
If anybody has copies of Tom Regan's books, could someone please add a paragraph about his views on veganism in the "ethics" section, including some quotes. Alternatively paste links here to text available online (i've not yet found any that mentions veganism). KellenT 19:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Veganism by Kellen
Kellen goes on an editing binge, and the Vegan article suddenly has little to no positive information in it. I reverted to 12.28 until his edits are discussed. Abe Froman (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What really caught my eye was the wholesale removal of the sections on Athletics, BGH, and Benjamin Spock. Not only were these cited to books or medical publications, they also contained information that could portray veganism positively. Why these were removed, while negative information, using similar sources, was retained, I can only guess. Abe Froman (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That was rather unhelpful. You didn't bother to check and see that I fixed up a number of citations and grammar in addition to removing sections which I moved here for the very purpose of discussing them. I was very blatantly not trying to be sneaky in my edits and I justified all of them in edit summaries and here on the talk page. Just because you view something as being 'positive' or 'negative' doesn't warrant that it's actually relevant to the article.
 * Here's a summary justification of my removals:
 * I removed the Spock paragraph because it didn't have a good home in the article. I noted this above.
 * I removed the Cancer research paragraph because none of the sources connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
 * I removed the COMA paragraph because none of the sources have connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
 * I removed the BGH paragraph because none of the sources connected it to veganism. WP:SYN
 * I removed the athletics paragraph because (1) the main text was not supported by the sources; in particular there was no example of athletics being used an "argument about the nutritional benefits of a vegan diet" (2) that Carl Lewis is vegan is essentially anecdotal evidence.
 * I removed the ADA statement that veganism is appropriate for all stages of life because this text is mentioned elsewhere in the article, and is therefore redundant.
 * I removed the "clinical B12 deficiency is uncommon" because I believed it to be false, due to a misunderstanding about "clinical" versus "sub-clinical" deficiency ("clinical" deficiency being the point where the deficiency manifests physically to the point of ill health, as opposed to having more general negative effects). In any case, the citations provided didn't back up the statement as it stood. I have no issue with this in the article at this point.
 * I condensed the malnutrition deaths section to remove some of the sensationalism. (Why aren't you complaining about that, btw?)
 * Just because I've focused on one section of the article doesn't mean I'm promoting the opposite POV. In the past, I've significantly culled and cited the so-called "negative" health section (that is, the "precautions"). Did you accuse me of promoting a pro-vegan POV then? No. I've edited the "anti" arguments in the "ethics" section and been accused of a pro-vegan POV, but not by you. I'd like to avoid getting into a back and forth between just you and me, so other editors, please comment. KellenT 13:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody? KellenT 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked at your changes, Kellen, and some of them could be seen as pro, some anti: Overall, it would take a bit of work to establish any case against your npov. Why don't you re do your edits one at a time, not all in one session, and each edit can be considered in its own right? Hopefully by more than one or two people! HTh TonyClarke (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Anybody else out there? If there are no other comments in the next day or two, I'm going to re-do most of my edits. KellenT 10:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, do. But please, one § at a time. CyrilleDunant (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, they were predominately one at a time in the first place. At least, they mostly done in single edits with individual edit summaries. If you instead meant that I should do one edit, wait a day, another edit, wait another, I think that's unreasonable (but I don't think that's what you meant). KellenT 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No of course not, that would be painful :) Just edit one § at a time: this way in case of conflicts, those can be (more) easily solved, or at least circumscribed. It also makes it easier to go through the history later on.CyrilleDunant (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've re-done most of my edits, one by one. If you have a critique of a specific edit, please bring it up rather than reverting everything I've done just on the basis of it looking "positive" or "negative." KellenT 12:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that veganism is pure vegetarianism? While vegans are pure vegitarians, in that they do not eat animal products, the DEFINITION of veganism is a lifestyle that excludes animal products from all facets of life. So there is no reason why pure vegetarians cannot wear fur coats while riding a bull to the circus; whereas a vegan would object to these other uses of animals. This definition has been posted with references in this article, including the wiki link. While it's nice to discuss changes, continually reverting erroneous changes to suit your beliefs, does little to improve the article. I am again reverting your change. If you look at the first reference cited for this, it clearly refutes your edits:


 * "the word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude — as far as is possible and practical — all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
 * Bob98133 (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Can I suggest that the terms 'pure vegetarian'/'strict vegetarian' be reinstated but in the last paragraph of the opening section, where vegan diets are discussed.--Michig (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, sure, that makes sense.Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry, I think you misunderstood what was going on. The wording "also strict or pure vegetarianism" has been in the article a long, long time. I wasn't the one who originally added it, but if you google for these terms, you'll see veganism discussed. I agree that veganism is a lifestyle, but it's also a diet, and the "pure/strict" terms are related to this. These are in no way "new" edits by me, I was just reverting an anon IP that also vandalized the article. KellenT 22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Where the text has been moved to now works fine for me. Cheers. KellenT 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Green Leafy Vegetable Edits
Kellen could be correct that a huge amount of these would be required to meet the RDA for calcium, but rephrasing it to say fortified soy milk or supplements amkes it appear that a vegan diet cannot in itself provide sufficient calcium without being supplemented. It also goes against some vegans who prefer to get their RDA's though "real" foods instead of supplements. Maybe there is a compromise that can indicate that while it might be difficult to get all the calcium needed without supplements, it is possible. For example, a cup of soybeans (180mg) has more calcium than a cup of cottage cheese (160mg)Bob98133 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you check out the calcium recommendations from vegan outreach, it is suggested that a vegan eat between 700 and 1000mg of calcium/day. This means, even with 180mg calcium coming from a cup of soybeans, you'd have to eat 3.5 - 5 cups of soybeans per day. This is probably why Vegan Outreach recommends eating fortified foods in addition to high calcium vegetables. Obviously you should eat these vegetables, but you probably have to supplement/eat fortified foods as well. KellenT 02:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I always believe that the RDA's are a bit exagerated but there's certainly no harm taking supplements. I don't know if Vegan Outreach are experts in nutrition but if a vegan really has to eat such huge amounts of veggies to get the RDA then the supplement text should stay as you suggest. Bob98133 (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The vegan outreach founder has educated as a dietician if i recall correctly. KellenT 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Broken links
The links supporting this sentence are broken:


 * The EPIC-Oxford study showed that vegans have an increased risk of bone fractures over both meat eaters and vegetarians, likely due to lower dietary calcium intake, but that vegans consuming more than the UK's estimated average requirements for calcium of 525 mg/day had risk of bone fractures similar to other groups.

Michael H 34 (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34


 * I've fixed the link, but unfortunately a fee is now required for the full text of the article. KellenT 20:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of veganism to decrease risk of new emerging epidemics
Hey,

Is it possible to describe that veganism has benefits to stopping emerging epidemics ? See the Epidemic-article where I added the info and reference (reference being this WHO-document ).

Thanks. KVDP (talk) 09:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the material you added to epidemic is directly supported or related. In that article, under the heading of "Pre-emptive measures", you wrote" "To protect us against the emergence of new epidemics, several preemptive measures have been proposed by professor Nina Marano and Andy Dobson. These include...To eat less food containing animal protein (eg meat, milk, milk-derivates)".  Now, I understand that you are trying to summarize the study in your own words, but I just looked over it and don't see where it says that anywhere.  It does say that "anthropogenic factors such as agricultural expansion and intensification to meet the increasing demand for animal protein, global travel, trade in domestic or exotic animals, urbanization, and habitat destruction comprise some of the major drivers of zoonotic disease emergence."  It also attributes "increased demand for animal protein" as risk factors for the spread of avian influenza and "protein consumption" as a risk factor for SARS.  It does not say that we should "eat less food containing animal protein" nor does it say anything about vegetarianism or veganism. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 11:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Barcelona Picture
How does the picture of a fruit/vegetable market in Barcelona contribute to this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.163.100 (talk) 13:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It adds beauty! It also represents the major food sources of the vegan diet. Djk3 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree actually; both the fruit stand picture and the one of soy beans strike me as 'filler' rather than images directly relating to the text presented. KellenT 15:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't feel strongly either way about either of those images. The fruit one is actually sort of ugly, looking back at it.  The soy bean image looks nice, whether or not it is appropriate. Djk3 (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the edit discussing mortality in vegans compared with meat-eaters
The edit changed "A 1999 metastudy of five studies on vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and meat eaters" to "A 1999 metastudy of five studies on vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and regular meat eaters. These two group had the highest mortality rate of 1.0 while vegetarian and infrequent meat eater performed better in term of mortality scoring 0.84, while those who only eat fish did best in term of mortality scoring 0.82."

A small question first: Does this remark in general belong in the Benefits section? I would say no, since it doesn't really address any beneficial aspect of a vegan diet. It doesn't really seem to be appropriate for the Precautions section either, but I think it would fit in there better, at least.

Second: I don't think that the new edit is phrased well. It's not obvious what the numbers mean, exactly, in the context of this article, and I don't think they're needed. If a reader would like to know more precise information, they can follow the link to the study. Additionally, I think that "performed better," "scoring," and "did best" aren't exactly right for this piece of information. Those phrases and words convey a sort of competition or contest. I do agree that the original sentence didn't really express enough, so I won't just revert the edit.

How does this sound: "A 1999 meta-study of five studies comparing vegetarian and non-vegetarian mortality rates in western countries found equivalent mortality rates for vegans and those who eat meat regularly.    The study also found equivalent and lower mortality rates for vegetarians and those who eat meat infrequently."

Thoughts? Djk3 (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - your phrasing is good. Bob98133 (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Your phrasing is better than the changed one.
 * The "benefits"/"precautions" section should ideally just be one section, but while the "precautions" section has been heavily edited, the "benefits" section still contains fluff and messiness.
 * The vegan-related results should be interpreted with caution, so say the authors:
 * "The number of vegans was small (n = 753 subjects, 68 deaths)" ... "This increased the number of vegans to 1146, of whom 165 died before age 90 y. However, the numbers of deaths from individual cancers among vegans remained small (range: 3–8)." ... "However, these death rate ratios should be interpreted with caution because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study." ... "Mortality from ischemic heart disease among the vegans was slightly higher than among the fish eaters and the vegetarians, but the number of vegans was small."
 * KellenT 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It took me a minute to find the numbers the editor was quoting. They're in this table, which uses the smaller number of vegans before adding those from the Health Food Shoppers Study. I'm going to add this edit, but I'm going to leave it where it is right now if the ultimate goal is to merge the Benefits and Precautions sections. It might be worth it to mention that the study says to interpret the death rate ratios with caution, but I'm not sure. The study says that we should do that because of the uncertainty of the dietary classification of subjects in the Health Food Shoppers Study, and the table that we're drawing information from doesn't include that data. Djk3 (talk) 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone is keep eliminating information which clearly indicate that vegan do pretty bad in term of longevity and that people who eat fish but no other meat live longest among sample groups. Isn't this a typical example of censorship? Vapour (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * by the way, I'm the one who originally digged out this various clinical studies and added in the vegetarian article. I'm more amused than annoyed that someone keep deleting this "Inconvenient Truth". Surely, vegan diet seems bad for one's longivity is relevant info. Vapour (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for finding those studies, they're really great. I have not deleted the information, I've just removed words that imply a sort of contest.  The section as I've edited it clearly says that vegans and regular meat eaters have equivalent mortality rates, and that vegetarians and occasional meat eaters also have equivalent mortality rates, and that they're lower.  Beyond that, the reader can follow the citation and read the study.  Regarding the second edit you made, adding "5 out of 5 studies indicated that adults who followed a low meat, high plant-food diet pattern experienced significant or marginally significant decreases in mortality risk relative to other patterns of intake," that may be read to directly contradict the preceding sentences.  Veganism is a low meat, high plant-food diet.  Additionally, since I assume that that is supposed to refer to standard vegetarianism, I don't think it's really merited on this page.  Thanks again for finding those studies.  Djk3 (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I wasn't happy about the repeated deletion of the fact that the edit which indicate the lowest mortality for people who eat fish but no other meat. Anyway, it is so much simpler if we write down the mortality rate for respective diet. Vapour (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, this article is about veganism, not about pescetarianism or the mortality rates of different diets. It's sufficient to say that the mortality rate of those following a vegan diet is equivalent to the mortality rate of those following an average meat-eating diet, and that the mortality rate of vegetarians and occasional meat-eaters is lower.  It's not simpler to write the mortality rates.  It's not obvious to me what those numbers represent, and we shouldn't make an assumption that someone reading this article will know; this isn't a technical article, and we can't expect someone reading it to have technical knowledge.  Djk3 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think it is acceptable to censor the fact that vegan as well as regular meat eater has the highest mortality rate while people who eat only fish has the lowest mortality rate. I will keep reverting if this crucial info is deleted or obscured. Vapour (talk) 09:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I reverted your edit. "I will keep reverting if this crucial info is deleted or obscured." is not acceptable on wikipedia. KellenT 10:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is acceptable. Do you care to give a reason why you are so eager to obscure the fact that vegan (along with regular meat eater) has the highest mortality rate? It is a blatant biased edit given that original article give precise numerical data on the mortality. Vapour (talk)


 * Plus, all of you seems to be involved in vegan, vegetarian and animal thingy. Biased wikipedia edit by ideologues seems to be getting quite a bad press recently. It is interesting to see how this thing will turn out. If you don't make valid policy argument for obscuring the vegan's highest mortality rate result (which I doubt there is one), then I will revert. Vapour (talk)


 * The argument for not including "the highest" is this: it is equivalent with the average diet. Referring to it as "the highest" is putting undue weight there; it is not a particularly high mortality rate.  The argument for not including the note about the fish-only diet is this: this is an article about veganism, not pescetarianism.  The important notes are that vegan diets provide an equivalent mortality rate with average meat-including diets, and that vegetarian and low-meat diets have a lower mortality rate.  Mentioning that pescetarianism is a more specific comment about that second note, and this is the wrong article in which to do that.   Wikipedia is not based on policy, but on consensus.  The consensus is clearly against the phrasing you provide. Djk3 (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A false argument there. My original edit was an import from vegetarian article.
 * "A 1999 metastudy[51] compared six major studies from western countries. The study found that the mortality ratio was the lowest in fish eaters (0.82) followed by vegetarians (0.84) and occasional meat eaters (0.84) and which was then followed by regular meat eaters (1.0) and vegan (1.0) [6]."
 * There was no emphasis on vegan being the worst diet. The edit based on raw citation was censored to support POV that "it (vegan mortaility) is not a particular high mortality rate" and "Vegan equivalent to regular meat eating is the most important aspect of the info" POV. We should let the original content of the source material speak for itself. We should not dictate what reader should interpret from such data. Anyway, given that almost everyone knows that regular/average diet in the West is unhealthy, it is not a flattering data for vegan diet but hey, that is my POV/(inconvenient truth) right? Vapour (talk) 09:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't checked, but I'd be most surprised to find that the WP articles on kashrut find it necessary to point out that “ah but a kosher diet is not the most healthy one possible, since this and that diet that includes fish without scales has been proven to have a lower mortality rate”. That would be ridiculous. If the point behind veganism was that it was the most healthy diet possible, a discussion of that claim could be relevant, but that is not its point, so not only is data about the healthiness of a diet containing the flesh of dead fish irrelevant, but it is also misleading, since it tends to make it appear that the point of veganism is the health issue.


 * The fact is that veganism has been often attacked as being a particularly unhealthy diet; correcting those allegations is the only reason, in my mind, health aspects should be discussed at all in the article.


 * David Olivier (talk) 12:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ah, may be, vegan diet is unhealthy. Having mortality equivalents to super-size-me diet of the general population is pretty bad. General population tend to drink more, smoke more, do less exercise, less educated than people who are vegetarian. And every long term vegan I know looks famished. Anyway, whatever I or you think about veganism is irrelevant to wikipedia editing. Can I restore the mortality data without spin. Vapour (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The precise diet of meat-eaters varies, and so does that of vegans. To state that on the average a vegan diet is as healthy, or unhealthy, as a meat-eating diet doesn't imply that it is unhealthy. It implies very little. I am for keeping that kind of vegan-bashing out. David Olivier (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, sample varies. It is called variance. And then there is things called standard variance. The studies quoted state that vegetarian, vegan, irregular meat eater and fish eater, statistically speaking, smoke less and drink less, do more exercise and are generally belong to higher socio economic group, all scientifically proven to confer longer life span. The paper specifically stated that large part of longer life span of vegetarian can be attributed to other life style choice unrelated to their diet. These things are not prejudice. It is a opinion based on scientific data. When intelligent design are excluded from school science class, it is not bible bashing. You are free to promote moral and possibly environmental aspect of vegan. It is irresponsible to promote health aspect of vegan which does not have scientific basis. Vapour (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I edited the content relating to Chinese study. I accept that content is slightly heavy with my interpretation. I don't like to delete content if it is sourced from verified source so I tried to salvage it. Feel free to trim it. Vapour (talk) 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that studies cited in the "health" section be about vegans (that is, they should be one of the studied populations), and that the cited conclusions be statistically significant. If not, they ought to come with very clear disclaimer (to the effect that they're not really applicable). I just made some changes to try to effect this. (Personal note: I am quite interested in negative results on veganism that pass these criteria.) Mkcmkc (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vegan activism
Since vegans are very outspoken and seem to be very active in bringing their philosophy to others, would a section on vegan activism be germaine to the article? Bugguyak (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Health effects of going back to eating meat?
I've heard claims of adverse effects when a person goes omnivore after a period of veganism. People say that some sort of meat-processing bacteria in your digestive system dies or somehow becomes inactive if you don't eat meat, so that you can't go back to eating meat after being a vegan.

Is there a Wikipedia article in which this claim is discussed? I've tried a little searching but I've found nothing on WP. I've heard this claim several times, so if (as I believe) it's not supported by the facts, shouldn't this myth be debunked in (for example) this article? 88.112.7.166 (talk) 14:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've not seen any research on this, and I'd say it's probably bunk. KellenT 15:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect this is an urban legend. Humans acquire their gut flora maternally (see Intestinal_flora), and it is not substantially altered by diet, except in cases of outright food poisoning or heavy antibiotic use.  Also, intestinal bacteria play a much more substantial role in breaking down carbohydrate-rich food rather than protein-rich food, so if this theory is correct it would be more difficult (digestively speaking) to shift from a long-term carnivorous diet to a vegan diet.  This is just speculation on my part, and I don't think we need to mention this in the article.  Skinwalker (talk) 17:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I can personally attest that if you're eating healthy and low-fat, or fasting, if you suddenly resume a standard American diet, you will feel like crap and probably experience severe digestive distress for a few days. Aside from that, the claim sounds bogus to me.  Mkcmkc (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Honey
I removed:
 * The controversial term may be here a distinction between organic certified or naturally gathered honey, in comparison to honey originating from mass production (which involves mass breeding queen bees and removing their wings to suppress the natural migration, feeding the bees on sugar syrup after their honey outcome was taken away or even killing the entire population during winter).

I removed this because (1) the issue of honey is already covered by the previous sentence, (2) the citation doesn't support the "controversial term" sentence (3) this doesn't address why some vegans find honey acceptable (e.g. because they don't view bees as passing the threshold for sentience or what have you). Basically it's unnecessary. KellenT 09:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. That sentence was mostly speculation anyhow.Bob98133 (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

PETA link dispute
I think that the PETA web site is a bit too general as a link for this article, however a link to the PETA vegan website http://www.goveg.com/ might be appropriate.Bob98133 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Pairadox - you're supposed to wait for Kellen or other editors to reply too, then go with the concensus! Any thoughts on adding the PETA vegan site?Bob98133 (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say neither. External links should be to sites that give people more information about veganism than they can find in the article. I don't think the PETA site or the goveg.com (not specifically about veganism) are suitable.--Michig (talk) 18:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the PETA link should stay. It's a similar organization in its general purpose to some of the others listed (Friends of Animals, etc.), and it's probably the most visible of those.  I think the reason there's a dispute isn't its relatedness to the article; I think it's probably because PETA is so opposed by so many people.  I also think that if we remove it because it's too general, we're going to have to slide down a slippery slope and remove the whole "Ethical" section.  That would be unfortunate and misguided, since the most frequent motivation for veganism is the ethical concerns, and the groups listed there represent those concerns.  There's my two cents!  :) Djk3 (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * WRONG!! The reason for removing it is exactly because it's not really about veganism - any of the others that aren't should also be removed. If ethical concerns are the "most frequent motivation for veganism" then it should be rather easy to find relevant websites. Pairadox (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just visited all the links in the "ethical" section and the only one that is specific to veganism is the Movement for Compassionate Living. I think that since the article is clear that veganism is usually an ethical stance so having websites, or even that Ethical section, isn't really necessary. I would say to move the Movement for Compassionate Living to the General links and ditch all the others. Besides, there are links to all sorts of orgs and other relevant articles in the category box.Bob98133 (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, as I said in my edit summary PETA is an AR organization which also promotes veganism. Also in my edit summary; see google search: "site:peta.org vegan", where you can find such things as:
 * While "cage-free" and "crate-free" don't mean "cruelty-free" (the best way to be cruelty-free is to go vegan)
 * And:
 * Adopting a vegan diet means saying “no” to cruelty to animals and environmental ...
 * So, yeah. KellenT 06:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If one has to resort to a google search to find a rationale for including PETA as a EL it's obviously not specific enough to be included. Pairadox (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe that "ethical" category could be changed to "Organizations that support veganism" or "pro-vegan organizations" if there is still a point having the links then? Bob98133 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * PETA is the highest profile animal rights organization in the world; they promote veganism; they're cited in several places in the article. How are they not relevant to ELs? You'll have to justify yourself better than complaining that I used a google search. KellenT 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think it's worthwhile to note that searching "site:peta.org" gets 25,300 hits (i.e. there are 25,300 pages under peta.org) and that searching "vegan OR veganism site:peta.org" gets 7,430 hits. That means that about a third of the pages on the PETA website mention veganism. Djk3 (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the Peta link should say as that is one of PETA's main goals.-Localzuk(talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

what about the economical and ecological ethics?
does any vegan think about what would happen if everyone drops animal oriented foods and starts consuming vegetables. Please dont take this as an insult, these are the points i am curious of as an engineer, these are only resource problems for me, We mankind are the most consuming animals on the planet and the assumptions i have made are about the usage of the resources and the effects, thanks for reading :)


 * first assumption: the wastes of plant farming( esp wheat) as source of animal will collapse which will increase vegetable prices that even poor people will get poorer,


 * second assumption: the increase in vegetable consumption will cause loss of lands dedicated to wild life as well as the lands in 3rd world countries will be used to feed rich countries ... means we do not have sufficient lands to feed us all(even today africa suffers starvation)


 * third assumption: animal farming does not consume much water as plant farming, water is the rarest resource in most of the fertile lands, and global climate change makes it even harder, we do not have enough water,


 * fourth assumption: the animals once fed for their milk, meat and leather will be under danger of extinction although today they are the most successful animals with respect to the evolution( biomass of cattles sheeps pigs etc are much more than any wild species),

if someone has any different views please inform me these are only my thoughts and do not need to mention medical and human evolution issues... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doganaktas (talk • contribs) 01:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your first point. To your second - remember that every animal consumed also has to eat plant food, and it has to eat many, many more calories of plant-origin food than the number of calories it will provide after slaughter.  To your third - again, remember that the animals are fed plant crops, so any inefficiency with water use in plant farming is only magnified by animal farming.  To your fourth - what is the ethical problem with a species going extinct?  I would not say that they are the most successful species simply because they have a high biomass.  Their biomass is high because we like to eat them, there are a lot of us, and we figured out how to make a lot of them.  It looks to me like you just made these up off the top of your head, so they can't go into the article. Djk3 (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Djk3's point is valid: animal farming requires vast amounts of plant farming for feed. From en ecological perspective, animal farming — in terms of calorie content, nutrient content, etc — is far less efficient in terms of not only land and water resources but also man-hour resources than plant farming alone is. The only exception would be livestock that is only sustained by grazing on existing pastureland, but due to shrinking pastureland, that is becoming increasingly rare and brings ecological concerns of its own (particularly evidenced by the loss of Sub-Saharan Africa to desertification caused by overgrazing, but elsewhere as well).
 * As for your first point, I do not quite understand your wording either, but if I understand you correctly, you are saying that higher demand for plant-derived foods will increase their price, causing serious problems for poor people. However, that scenario would only occur in the unlikely event that animal-derived foods were done away with suddenly, with farms not being able to adjust their production methods in time to supply the new demand for plant-derived foods. A far more likely scenario would be for the change to occur gradually over time, which would allow farms to keep up with the increased demand for plant foods and decreased demand for animal foods. In fact, the end result would probably mean that plant foods would be cheaper than they are now, due to economies of scale.
 * As for your fourth point, I disagree with Djk3 that there is no ethical problem with species going extinct. However, I don't think that would happen in this case. Already there are thousands of endangered species that do not serve any direct practical use to humans, but are nevertheless protected from extinction, for many legitimate reasons. Many of these reasons would also extend to livestock species, and some new ones would arise. For example, humans may adopt some species as full-blown pets or companion animals (as many already do with pigs). If it somehow happens that humans have no other reason to keep them around, they would probably adapt to the wild, as most domesticated animals have shown the ability to do. But even without these reasons, at the very least, they would survive in zoos, as many other endangered species do.
 * Anyway, as Djk3 mentioned, your ideas here, unless drawn from a reputable source, would not be admissible in Wikipedia, due to the original research policy. It's an interesting topic to think about, though. -kotra (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The ecological aspect is a little more nuanced than that. Eating locally can be better for the environment than eating only plants.  Take a look at the last paragraph here.  Depending on where you live, it is more environmentally friendly to eat a small amount of meat (still much less than the average American consumption) than an exclusively plant-based diet.  Marginally fertile land can support more people if used for animal farming.  If you don't live near highly fertile farmland, you have to package and transport vegetables in from elsewhere - which leads to more greenhouse emissions.
 * At any rate, I agree that we need to see reliable sources for any of these ideas. Until then, it's a moot point.  Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That paragraph you mention is confusingly worded. It starts off saying that vegetarian diets (which do not include meat) require the least amount of land. Then it says that a diet that has a small amount of meat and dairy can support more people on the same amount of land - essentially saying that such a (non-vegetarian) diet requires even less land to produce the same amount of food. Unless I'm mistaken, these two sentences conflict... I think that text should be clarified.
 * As for eating locally, I understand that it in some situations it may be more ecologically sound than eating a vegan diet that isn't local, but in my mind these are two separate issues. Ecologically speaking, the best diet would be a locally-grown vegan diet, right? True, in arid or extremely rocky places such a diet may not be available, and in those cases I might agree with you. But keep in mind that in those places, grazing often leads to erosion and desertification.
 * Land does not need to be highly fertile to support plant crops; the reason we see livestock on fertile land instead of plant crops is simply the great demand for animal products, not because livestock are the only suitable use for the land. -kotra (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting topic, but we shouldn't go into any depth discussing it here. We should focus on talking about how much of this can be be incorporated into the article.  As it stands, I think the answer is none.  I wonder if there is any real scientific research into this. Djk3 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. This is interesting but the focus of this should stay on topic - veganism may or may not be more ecological than some other diet, but that is not its defining characteristic. This might be a claim made by vegans, or there might be references to support it, which could merit a mention in the article, but it is a minor point. Bob98133 (talk) 12:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. Sorry for getting off track. However, I still think the paragraph in question is confusingly worded and should be explained. If no one else gets to it, I'll take a look at the references sometime within the next few days to see if I can find out the intended meaning. -kotra (talk)


 * I would like to point out an article that actually explains the myths/issues regarding veganism. It shed some light on some issues I was unsure about. http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html 207.228.52.221 (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)m0u5y


 * Hi, 207.228.52.221! Hope you have a nice day! Must be unrewarding work going around all of Internet spamming cute “I found this article interesting” lies! David Olivier (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Peter Singer is NOT a vegan!
Peter Singer calls himself a "flexible vegan" which is, *not* a vegan. According to the definition on which the wikipedia and vegan society has agreed, Singer does not meet this quality.

"I don’t eat meat. I’ve been a vegetarian since 1971. I’ve gradually become increasingly vegan. I am largely vegan but I’m a flexible vegan. I don’t go to the supermarket and buy non-vegan stuff for myself. But when I’m traveling or going to other people’s places I will be quite happy to eat vegetarian rather than vegan. " (My bad about not signing, still learning) http://www.motherjones.com/interview/2006/04/peter_singer.html Ajkochanowicz (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, yeah, we've talked about this before at Talk:Veganism/Archive08. Ultimately, why do we care? He explicitly advocates veganism. KellenT 11:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it's a matter of being pure, no one is a vegan; so we could cite no one in the article as being vegan, if we were held to that standard. If the issue is that Peter Singer himself admits not being a perfect vegan, while others do not, that something about what they say, not what they are, and may not be very relevant.


 * This isn't an article about Peter Singer, and the article only mentions Peter Singer's being vegan when it gives his reasons in favor of veganism. It seems perfectly natural in this context to qualify him as a vegan, without going into details about how perfect he is (versus how perfect others are).


 * David Olivier (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Intor: health effect of vegan is not same as vegetarian
It appear that vegan advocate are insinuating that favourable health effect vegetarian automatically apply to vegan. This is not the case. Plus, some details of the quoted paper seems to be funked. There is no mention of reduced risk to cancer in the cited paper. A separate study which incorporate the same cited article also show that your mortality rate rise if you switch from vegetarian to vegan, to the level equivalent to regular meat eater. Vapour (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that vegan is different from vegetarian. The 2003 British study, for example, should be omitted here, as vegans were not one of the studied populations.  Mkcmkc (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Vegan advocacy site
Please stop using info from vegan advocacy site. These site is no where considered as neutral or verifiable. Info from academia or media is the rule. Vapour (talk) 15:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed your comments on this page. There are a lot indicating that you were not happy with the vegan mortality rate being "overlooked" since the data you present says that it is equivalent to non-vegetarians. Fine. However, your recent removal of sources was not discussed. While PCRM is definitely an advocacy group, the info you deleted from HSUS was well documented and did include the original source for the info. Instead of just insisting that you are right and will revert your edits no matter what, it would be prefereable for you to discuss all edits likely to be contentious on the talk page prior to making such sweeping changes. I will eventually revert the HSUS info if no one else does, but can you reconsider your changes and discuss them first? Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I also think your edits are are lacking in justification. Yes, PCRM is an advocacy group, but that fact alone doesn't prevent us from citing them. You also seem to have blanked a lot of other stuff, not all of which I've reviewed, but, for example, the intro is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article, but you have now used it to cite mortality for heart disease. So, basically, you need to review your edits ASAP or you'll likely be reverted. KellenT 16:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I too believe that advocacy groups are ok to cite as long as the text mentions that the cited material is from an advocacy group. For example, "The Humane Society of America, an animal welfare/rights advocacy group, says...". Let the informed reader decide if they want to believe an advocacy group or not. If we use such wording, I believe this controversy would be easily resolved.
 * Also, I agree, large-scale blanking (except to revert vandalism) should always be discussed on the talk page. It goes a long way to showing good faith and reducing edit wars. -kotra (talk) 22:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The purpose of wikipedia verification policy is to set the threshold of inclusion. Advocacy site is not a verifiable source. What prevent, say, KKK, using wikipedia as a platform. Plus, Wikipedia edit could easily degenerate into nothing more than forum flame war.
 * Citation of advocacy groups is allowed when they are quoted in verified site (i.e. media and academia). That is why we see copious amount of quote from, say, Amnesty International or Green Peace. Published books are grey area as some publisher are reputable while others are not so. If you find your content from advocacy site quoted in media or academia, feel free to add it here. Vapour (talk) 14:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting WP:V. It says nothing about media and academia being the only places one can reference. The only restriction is that references must be reliable sources, and for finding a notable view of veganism, the Humane Society of America and the PCRM are very reliable and relevant sources on that subject. Please also note that I am all for presenting these views as "views", but I am certainly opposed, as you are, to presenting them as "fact". If the statements these advocacy organizations support were presented as fact, I too would have a problem with it. However, none of the statements referenced using PCRM or the HSA present anything as fact, instead "The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends..." or similar. -kotra (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

And I corrected misquote of China study. Some Chinese are Mahayana Buddhist and are vegetarian but they are not vegan. The medical studies I have quoted established that all overall gain one make from vegetarianism or reduced meat intake is lost once one switch to veganism. Vapour (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Human society
I removed:
 * The Humane Society of the United States on the subject of a vegan diet as prevention of cancer:

"An exhaustive report on diet and cancer was released by the American Institute for Cancer Research and the World Cancer Research Fund. Ten years in the making, reviewing more than 7,000 scientific studies, this 500+ page report is being considered the most comprehensive review ever published on the causal role of diet in cancer. The good news is that cancer is largely preventable. In addition to stopping smoking, exercising daily, and attaining a healthy weight, the expert panel recommends an overall limit on meat intake, and specifically singles out processed meat—bacon, hot dogs, ham and cold cuts—as a "convincing cause" of cancer. In general they conclude: "Eat mostly foods of plant origin". By choosing to eat a more humane, plant-based diet we can simultaneously attend to our own welfare, that of the animals, and that of our planet." .

I followed the source link (which is a link to a blog, not the report), found the main site for the study, searched here for "vegan," searched in the result PDFs for "vegan" and found mentions of vegan only in the context of defining what the diet is. Maybe the "plant-based diet" quote could be used somewhere else, but it borders on WP:SYN. KellenT 12:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed singer fragment
I removed:
 * Vegans like Peter Singer follow veganism for other reasons. Singer, who does not believe that all animal life is sacred, advocates veganism for utilitarian reasons, stating that the benefit caused by a good taste for the human who consumes animal products is more than negated by the pain felt by the beings who are consumed.

Because there's already a section on Singer and this paragraph mainly seemed to be used to rebut the Jarvis' argument, which gets into tit-for-tat POV in the text of the article, which we would be better off without. KellenT 10:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

opening lines error.
"Vegans do not use or consume animal products of any kind" is wrong for all practical reasons as animal products and their consumption by vegans (knowingly or unknowingly) is too large a list to retype here given that it was already in the article earlier with sources. I suggest it be reworded or something. Idleguy (talk) 09:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Someone has now addressed this issue. -kotra (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Gary Francione link removed
I find it strange that PETA is still in the link section, while Gary Francione has been removed. PETA does not advocate veganism as its moral baseline, and usually uses the word "vegetarian" in its literature. It is an animal welfare organization, not a vegan organization. I am not suggesting that the link to Francione's blog should be restored. However, since PETA advocates vegetarianism and welfare reforms, and only tangentially advocates veganism, it should not be included in the external links either. --Nick, 15:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what PETA is if you think they are an animal welfare org. They are an animal rights organisation, they promote veganism through campaigning against milk, leather, eggs, etc... They use the terms vegetarian and vegan interchangably - look at this page for an example.
 * However, I would agree with the Gary Francione link being re-instated.-Localzuk(talk) 15:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PETA is an AR organization, which promotes veganism (see previous discussion above). Francione also promotes veganism but my feeling is that he's less important overall than PETA, linking to his blog directly is a bit unnecessary (one can follow the reference links), and doing so will encourage creeping external links growth. KellenT 20:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Francione may not be as well-known or influential as PETA, but he represents a major, distinct viewpoint. Along with Singer and Regan, he is one of the three most important philosophers on animal issues. Perhaps we shouldn't link to his blog, but the abolitionist strand of veganism is significant, and this should be pointed out. --Nick, 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, which is why I wrote the paragraph which includes his POV in the "ethical concerns" section. KellenT 15:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Benefits of animal-based Diets
I just removed the following from the "Benefits":


 * Conversely, based on a study in Japan, researchers suggest that increased consumption of some animal products coincided with a decrease in risk for some forms of cerebrovascular disease and stroke mortality.

While those findings are certainly noteworthy, it's too lengthy a reference to put right in the first paragraph of a section that deals with the benefits of a vegan diet. It really disturbs the flow of the paragraph. Maybe this would fit in somewhere else in the article (thought I couldn't find a proper place). Lodp (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Vegan nutrition?
I suggest we delete the vegan nutrition article, which was a fork of a section of this article back in the day, but which has retained sections that we've excluded from this article, retained lots of bad writing, has poor citations, and overall is unnecessary since the major (i.e. encyclopedic) issues of a vegan diet are addressed here, and the minutiae is better left to the vegan advocacy websites (the vegan society, and vegan outreach's veganhealth.org). I'll put it up for AFD if there's some agreement here. KellenT 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, even the first line is badly written, "Vegan nutrition encompasses the nutrients vegans require for a balanced diet. It is an important part of a vegan's life" If there's no 'omnivorous nutrition' article and how it's an important part of an omnivores life then there should be no vegan equivalent. Muleattack (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We've got a couple. I am indifferent about the vegan nutrition article.  Djk3 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should delete that article. nk, 19:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Anybody else have an opinion on this matter? KellenT 10:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Watson Image
I added a photo of Donald Watson to the "Definition" sectoin of the article, since he is the one (or half of two) that coined the term "vegan", only to be reverted by User:Kotra, who argued that illustrating the diet was more important than Watson. The photo there now is the generic "cornucopia" image used all over. In my opinion, Watson is much more relevant to that section than a food image, especially considering the fact that we have additional food images later in the article. Opinions? KellenT 05:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't see any need for a picture of Watson in this article. In Donald Watson, surely, and maybe also Vegan Society, but in this article, his name is just briefly mentioned. Do we need to have pictures of every person that's mentioned, however briefly?
 * As for the "cornucopia" image, it's only used in two other articles, Vegetarianism and Food. I see no problem with using it here as well, it's the only image that illustrates the wide variety of foods that can be found in a vegan diet. -kotra (talk) 16:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I just don't see any need for a picture of a cornucopia in this article. In Food, surely, and maybe also Vegetarianism, but in this article it's not even mentioned. Do we need to have pictures of every food that's mentioned, however briefly?
 * As for the "watson" image, it's only used in two other articles, Donald Watson and Vegan Society. I see no problem with using it here as well, it's the only image that illustrates the inventor of the word "vegan" and founder of the world's first vegan society. (apologies for the sass) KellenT 17:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel a picture of Watson would be appropriate. I also have mixed feelings about the “cornucopia” picture. It looks a lot like a cliché to me. I mean, the cliché that vegans necessarily eat a great number of fresh, raw or unprocessed vegetables and fruit. I'm vegan but I don't eat like that at all. I eat a lot of spaghetti, soy milk and breakfast cereals, bread, bottled fruit juice, soft drinks, soy cheese, chips, pizzas and so on which are all vegan but not at all represented in that picture. Also, let's face it, the concept of veganism is a negative on, and we should not be ashamed of it. Vegans are defined by what they do not eat, not by what they eat, and it makes no sense trying to disguise that fact and turning it into a positive one, like “look here all the delicious stuff we eat”. David Olivier (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to David Olivier) The basic ingredients for all the foods you mention are pretty much all present in the "cornucopia" image. They're just in their pre-processed form. I agree that vegans don't always (or even usually) eat these foods as they are pictured (whole and raw), but I don't think that's what the image would convey to readers. I think it conveys that these are the basic ingredients a vegan can eat. I see no problem with illustrating what vegans can eat as opposed to what they can't. A common question vegans (and vegetarians) get is "What can you actually eat? Salads?" I agree that vegans are defined more by what they don't eat, but it makes more sense to me to illustrate what they can eat, instead of a picture of meat, eggs, dairy, honey(?), etc. I'm not sure why that makes more sense to me, but it probably has something to do with balance. Most of this article seems preoccupied with discussing what veganism excludes and why, but very little attention is given to what veganism includes. Maybe this is a case of me advancing POV, though I'm not entirely sure what that POV is. I certainly would find soy ice cream, potato chips, and soda more appealing than a bunch of raw vegetables, nuts, and grains. -kotra (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to Kellen) The sass was well done. My compliments. However, if you are putting forth these arguments seriously, here's my response:
 * This article is (mainly) about a diet. As I see it, the food one can eat in such a diet should surely be illustrated, perhaps more than anything else in the article. I don't understand what you mean by "it's not even mentioned". Are you referring to the food one can eat in a vegan diet? If so, keep in mind that the intention of the image is not to illustrate every specific food that is mentioned in the article, but the diet in general. Concerning your comparison to its use in Vegetarianism, I see no difference between the image's relevance in Vegetarianism and Veganism. If anything, it's less relevant in Vegetarianism, because vegetarianism often includes dairy and eggs as well as the plant foods illustrated. Therefore, if it's useful in Vegetarianism, then wouldn't it be just as useful, perhaps even more so, in Veganism?
 * Concerning the "Watson" image, I still don't see it as that important. He may have been one of the founders of the first vegan society, and one of those who came up with the term "vegan" (according to this article anyway, the Vegan Society website is currently down), and I'm not disputing his large role in the early formation of veganism, but I certainly don't think his picture takes greater precedence than the other image. It's not like he's the creator of veganism or some sort of revered figure amongst vegans (at least, not that I know of). Maybe I'm just ignorant, but I hadn't even heard of him until this article (and I'm vegan myself, or nearly so). I wouldn't have a problem with us including both images, though. -kotra (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a cornucopia-style image, but the current one is hideous. I know that's entirely subjective, but I think a lot of people would agree. And I see absolutely no problem including an image of Donald Watson. I don't me an to compare veganism to religion, but consider this: there's a picture of Jesus in the article on Christianity and a picture of Buddha in the article on Buddhism. There's a picture of Harriet Tubman in the Underground Railroad article, and her name only appears once in the text. It makes sense to have important figures of the movement pictured. And Donald Watson is the single most important one since he made up the word "vegan." --nk, 03:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The "cornucopia" image doesn't look hideous to me. It looks nice to me, actually. Not nice as in "this makes me hungry", but nice in terms of design. Could be just me, though.
 * I'm not convinced Watson is the most important person in the history of veganism. Even if he did come up with the word "veganism" (which isn't clear from this article or the Vegan Society website, which only says the word was coined in a meeting of a group of six), that doesn't mean he's the most important person in veganism, or that he should have a picture in the article. After all, there's no need to have a picture of Raphael Lemkin in Genocide or Michael Young in Meritocracy. One could argue that Watson is important also because he helped found the first vegan society. That may be so, but I still wouldn't consider him a figurehead or leader of veganism, as those examples you mentioned would be. To me it's a borderline case though, so like I said, I wouldn't object to including his picture in addition to the other image. (It is odd though that Harriet Tubman isn't mentioned more in Underground Railroad) -kotra (talk) 06:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Read source 14:
 * VIP: We understand that you are responsible for creating the word "vegan." How did that occur? Why did you feel the word was needed?
 * DW: I invited my early readers to suggest a more concise word to replace "non-dairy vegetarian." Some bizarre suggestions were made like "dairyban, vitan, benevore, sanivore, beaumangeur", et cetera. I settled for my own word, "vegan", containing the first three and last two letters of "vegetarian" -- "the beginning and end of vegetarian." The word was accepted by the Oxford English Dictionary and no one has tried to improve it.
 * If you look at featured articles, and many good articles, portraits of founders and proponents of certain philosophies are often shown. So yes, the person who coined the term "vegan," and founded the first vegan society is awfully relevant to the section of the article about the term vegan. In any case, Watson is certainly more notable to veganism than Dennis Kucinich, whose photo is shown in the section below. KellenT 08:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the slow response. Thanks for giving a source, it changes the situation somewhat. I wouldn't say Watson is more notable to veganism than Kucinich (because a lot more people actually have heard of Kucinich), but since we know that he came up with the term "Vegan", I think it would be ok to have his picture alongside some text talking about the term. We may be able to find a better source, though. -kotra (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Barely anyone outside the USA has heard of Kucinich. Watson is far more relevant.--Michig (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would still say that fewer people have heard of Watson, even outside the USA, but this is irrelevant; I'd be ok with a Watson image in the Definition section anyway. However, as I was preparing to add the Watson image, I found it was Fair Use only, and I couldn't find a free image on Wikipedia or the Commons. I'm not sure if that particular image, on this article which isn't directly about him, would meet the fair use criteria. I'll look for a free image. -kotra (talk) 17:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Couldn't find a free image, but a fair use rationale is probably valid. Interestingly, the BBC neglected to credit the source of the image when they published it. Anyway, I have added it now. -kotra (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What vegans eat is about food, not botany
A discussion about the appropriateness of the “cornucopia” image was started in the last section, but it is off-topic there so I'll continue it here.

I said: ''“the cliché that vegans necessarily eat a great number of fresh, raw or unprocessed vegetables and fruit. I'm vegan but I don't eat like that at all. I eat a lot of spaghetti, soy milk and breakfast cereals, bread, bottled fruit juice, soft drinks, soy cheese, chips, pizzas and so on which are all vegan but not at all represented in that picture.”''. Kotra answered: ''“The basic ingredients for all the foods you mention are pretty much all present in the "cornucopia" image. They're just in their pre-processed form. I agree that vegans don't always (or even usually) eat these foods as they are pictured (whole and raw), but I don't think that's what the image would convey to readers. I think it conveys that these are the basic ingredients a vegan can eat. I see no problem with illustrating what vegans can eat as opposed to what they can't.”''

If I ask an average meat-eater what ey ate at lunch, the response will not be: “I ate cereals, legumes and pig muscle”. Rather it might be “pork with beans and bread”. True, vegans are often questioned about what they do eat; but just as often the answer comes as something like “grains, legumes, roots, nuts...” That is really strange. It's like confusing food with botany. Botanically, carrots may be roots, but as a food, carrots are carrots, and everyone knows carrots.

If we are to represent the foods vegans eat, I think we should start out with the foodstuffs that everyone knows. Bread, spaghetti, pizzas, French fries, water, soft drinks, sauerkraut, salads, biscuits, carrots and peas, wine and beer and other commonplace things. Then also the vegan equivalents to other commonplace items: soy milk, soy yoghurt, vegan ice cream, margarine, pastry... And then the vegan specifics like tofu, tempeh and so on.

Veganism is not about being aliens from Vega. Some vegans may eat only raw wild roots, or whole organic local-grown grains. But that's just one particular form of veganism, and I don't think the article should promote that as being what veganism is about.

David Olivier (talk) 10:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, I don't think an attempt should even be made to try and represent in a picture the food of a vegan diet. There's so many different things that it's foolish to try imho and from my experience one persons vegan diet can be radically different from anothers. E.G. raw foodists and junk foodists :P Muleattack (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, except that a vegan diet might appear even more strange if no picture can adequately describe it. It might be good to get rights to, or find an image like this one that shows that many "normal" foods are vegan. Bob98133 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know this isn't universally the case, but all of the vegans I know (including myself) do in fact eat a lot of organic fruits, vegetables, etc., as pictured in the cornucopia image. Then again, there are lots of "junk-food vegans" who live off oreos and pop-tarts. The huge range of things vegans eat cannot be encompassed in a single image. Perhaps it would be better not to have one at all. This point is also relevant in the section on vegan cuisine, which currently describes meat substitutes and ignores most everything else. This section should be expanded. nk 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the issue is so much about what actual vegans eat (and trying to determine (or quibble over) which of them are more “typical”), as about what defines veganism. Actual vegans may all wear yellow sweaters, but that doesn't mean that yellow sweaters is part of veganism.


 * Take an average American diet, and you make it vegan by taking out the foods that have animal products, and leaving in the others. That leaves in bread (including white non-organic bread), spaghetti, pizza, french fries, soft drinks and so on. You then add in commonplace vegan substitutes for commonplace animal products; in other words, soy milk, soy yoguhurt, seitan and so on. Then you get a vegan equivalent of the typical American diet.


 * To then make it organic, raw-foodist, wheatgrassish and alfalfa-sproutish, is to do something else, that has no logical connection to being vegan. Even if all actual vegans did it (they don't, not all), that wouldn't make it relevant to what veganism is.


 * I like the idea of the page linked by Bob98133, it's exactly what I'm trying to express. Except that the picture doesn't seem very good to me. OK, where does that leave us? I don't know :)


 * David Olivier (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As long as we're describing an ideal image, here are my suggestions:
 * no brand names
 * common vegan items from all food groups
 * no prejudice against junk foods or healthy foods
 * if it's a photograph, a real-life arrangement would be better than a composite image
 * if it's an illustration, every item should be recognizable
 * Anybody up to it? -kotra (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea, how about no picture at all? I don't see a reason to try and encompass the vegan diet (typical or otherwise) in a picture Muleattack (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be informative to illustrate the vegan diet in an article about the vegan diet, if such an illustration is possible? -kotra (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with survey questions on vegetarianism / veganism
References to a 2007 UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have been removed. This survey suggested that 2.24% of the England population had identified themselves as vegan, which is substantially higher than other survey results. Subsequent recontacting of respondents who had given a positive response found that very few of them were vegan or had ever been vegan. The conclusion is that some respondents did not know what vegan meant and had given a false positive response. StevieBassBoy (talk) 10:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you provide references to back up the 'false positive' claim? No offence, but we can't just take your word for it.--Michig (talk) 11:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

With apologies, there is not a publicly available reference at present, so it is just my word. I work in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and commissioned the Defra survey cited. Following correspondence with the Vegan Society concerning the higher than expected percentage claiming to be vegan, our contractor recontacted those who claimed to be vegan and found that very few of them were vegan or had ever been vegan. Owing to some technical difficulties we have not been able to reflect this in the survey results still available on the Defra website, but they should not be cited further. The vegan result is of limited importance for the purposes of our survey (it was just a means of checking responses to other questions rather than a purposeful output). However it is of importance to the Vegan Society that the false result is not promulgated further. If the reference is reinstated again, at present you only have my assurance that it is incorrect. StevieBassBoy (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I appreciate what you say, but if this information is factually incorrect it is reprehensible for DEFRA to continue to have it on their website. Does this mean that all references in Wiki from DEFRA should be removed? As a government agency, it behooves them to present correct information, promptly remove incorrect information, and know the difference between the two. Until they issue a retraction of this data, I think it should stay in the article. It is properly referenced from a government website. Bob98133 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My two (euro) cents' worth is that if the DEFRA figure is at variance with other figures for the UK, it should be possible to present it in a way showing that it is an aberrant value. Perhaps the results of a few other surveys would help. And if the Vegan Society is alerted to the problem, couldn't they issue a press release or something somewhere on their website to that effect, and that we could cite? David Olivier (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. It should be qualified to indicate the variance if it's used. I was just horrified that a govt agency would leave a mistake that they knew about on their web site.Bob98133 (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The removed section was:
 * A 2007 survey for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the UK population's attitudes and behaviour towards the environment found that 2.24% of the population identified themselves as vegan. In the same study, vegetarians who did not also eat chicken or fish made up 2.7% of the population. The DEFRA study also indicated that slightly more men than women are vegan, that more vegans live in towns or cities than the country, and that people aged 16-29 were vegan more often than any other age group.

Hopefully StevieBassBoy can provide us with something we can cite, or at least use to agree upon excluding the study from the article. KellenT 15:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed William Jarvis paragraph from Ethical Concerns
This is clearly a preposterous statement meant to cause misinformation by a group that thinks chiropractic is bogus. This paragraph sounds ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonnieD123 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 18 June 2008

Animal Derived products
The following sentence was rewritten because it was very poorly constructed:

"Animal ingredients can be found in countless products and are used in the production of—though not always present in the final form of—many more many of these ingredients are esoteric also have non-animal sources, and especially in non-food products may not even be identified."

Before rewriting this sentence, I spent a bit of time trying to figure out what the author was saying and I am still not sure if I understand it. If anyone wants to edit my writing, please don't do so by replacing it with this sentence. Please restate the point in a more clear manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DivaNtrainin (talk • contribs) 22:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The sentence is perfectly clear. It's referring to products like refined sugar.  While the bag of refined sugar on your shelf has no animal products in it, it may have been processed with bone char.  Other products are wine and beer, which can be filtered with some fish-derived products.  Non-food products that are processed with animal products (I believe) include rubber and steel, both using animal fats.  Djk3 (talk) 23:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Pay attention to the punctuation. The way you've written the sentence here renders it nonsense.  In the article it's perfectly fine.  Maybe we should move the references to the end of the sentence so the punctuation is more obvious?  Djk3 (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The sentence is not clear at all. I will rewrite the sentence now that I understand what you are trying to say. The sentence has two subjects located within two different parts of the sentence. It has two different verbs within two different parts of the sentence, and this is not a compound sentence. Please note, that anytime an author has to give instructions to a reader on how to read a sentence, then it is the author that has failed. DivaNtrainin


 * The sentence is in truth a compound sentence, but that's irrelevant. I personally had no trouble understanding the sentence, and I don't feel that your rewording is an improvement. It uses simpler language - and removes the need for the hyphenated part - but it's more awkward-sounding and longer. I've reverted it now to the old version, which has been around since March 2007 without any other complaints. -kotra (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

My rewording is an improvement. My improvement uses simpler language and that's a good thing. The reader shouldn't need to have a Ph.D. to use wikipedia. There are more problems with your sentence. For example, you state "Animal ingredients can be found in countless products...". Isn't the prescence of animal ingredients in a lot of product obvious? Does this really need to be said?

Then you state "(Animal Products) are used in the production of—...—many more many of these ingredients". So, now you are saying the quantity of animal-based ingredients is some quantity more than countless. That does not make sense.

Then you say "(Animal Products) are used in the production of—...—many more many of these ingredients are esoteric". According to www.dictionary.com, esoteric is defined as

"1.understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions. 2. belonging to the select few.  3. private; secret; confidential. "

So, if we use either of the first two definitions, then your sentenced does not make sense.

Your sentence states that non-animal ingredients aren't identified on the label, but you don't provide any reason why. Your original sentence could also be rephrased as "Don't bother looking at the label to detemine if animal products were used to make the product." That's hardly a worthwhile point.

I have no problem with you editing my work, but don't replace it with something that is poorly structured and unclear. DivaNtrainin —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining your position in more detail. I'll comment on each point below. Minor nitpick first though: the old version isn't 'mine' actually, Kellen` wrote it.


 * My rewording is an improvement. My improvement uses simpler language and that's a good thing. The reader shouldn't need to have a Ph.D. to use wikipedia.


 * I agree that your version uses simpler language, and usually that's a good thing as long as meaning isn't sacrificed. But your version uses vague wording like "things" and "this information", which are less clear than the previous wording. Your version is also longer, and the second sentence is a run-on. For those reasons, I prefer the old version, but it could be improved (more on that below).


 * There are more problems with your sentence. For example, you state "Animal ingredients can be found in countless products...". Isn't the prescence of animal ingredients in a lot of product obvious? Does this really need to be said?


 * I don't think this is obvious to everyone. Many people don't know what is in the foods they eat (this is worrying, but true). Speaking from personal experience, unless I check the ingredients, I don't know if the pudding I eat is made with gelatin or corn starch, or if the bread I'm eating has whey in it.


 * Then you state "(Animal Products) are used in the production of—...—many more many of these ingredients". So, now you are saying the quantity of animal-based ingredients is some quantity more than countless. That does not make sense.


 * This means that animal products are used to produce some ingredients. This does not mean they are present in the final ingredient that gets put into the product. For example, some cane sugar gets filtered with bone char, to make it whiter. The bone char doesn't actually stay in the sugar when the filtering is done though, so it isn't listed in the ingredients. The "-though not always present in the final form of-" part you omitted explains that.


 * Then you say "(Animal Products) are used in the production of—...—many more many of these ingredients are esoteric". According to www.dictionary.com, esoteric is defined as


 * "1.understood by or meant for only the select few who have special knowledge or interest; recondite: poetry full of esoteric allusions.
 * 2. belonging to the select few.
 * 3. private; secret; confidential. "


 * So, if we use either of the first two definitions, then your sentenced does not make sense.


 * I actually agree here. "Esoteric" is a poor word choice. I would use "obscure" instead.


 * Your sentence states that non-animal ingredients aren't identified on the label, but you don't provide any reason why. Your original sentence could also be rephrased as "Don't bother looking at the label to detemine if animal products were used to make the product." That's hardly a worthwhile point.


 * It was referring to "non-food products". Such products sometimes don't even list ingredients at all, if they're not required to by law. But actually, that statement isn't entirely backed up by the reference it cites; it shouldn't be talking about ingredients at all, but animal products used in the production of ingredients. So that should be changed.
 * Also, you removed the citations that are necessary to back up the statements. The citations are necessary. So, taking into consideration all the above, this is what I propose:


 * "Animal products can be found as ingredients in countless products, and are used in the production of — but not present as ingredients in the final product — many more.  Many of these animal products are listed as obscure chemical names,  also have non-animal sources, and may not even be identified if the animal product is not present in the product's final form. "


 * What do you think? -kotra (talk) 05:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally wrote the paragraph to be concise and precise in order to combat article creep. You don't need four paragraphs to explain what animal products are and why they're a problem to deal with. Here's the original, for reference:
 * Animal ingredients can be found in countless products and are used in the production of—though not always present in the final form of—many more;  many of these ingredients are esoteric,  also have non-animal sources, and especially in non-food products may not even be identified.
 * Of course the text can be improved, I would go more with:
 * Animal products are ingredients can be found in countless products and are used in the production of—though not always present in the final form of—many more ; .  m M any of these ingredients products are esoteric obscure,  also have non-animal sources, and especially in non-food products may not even be identified.
 * The "products are" is an improvement and is more correct, and eliminating the semicolon may make some readers more comfortable. And "obscure" is just as good as "esoteric." Kotra: "as chemical names" is wrong; many people don't know that whey, rennet, etc, are animal products, but neither are these chemical names. With "if the animal product is not present in the product's final form" you're trying to work around the word "ingredient" as the subject of the sentence, but it's better to just use "products" instead, and then the final citation supports the sentence just fine. Also, no spaces before or after em-dashes, thanks. KellenT 12:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Point taken about "chemical names".
 * About the final citation, after rereading it I can see how the text ("Many of these products ... especially in non-food products may not even be identified.") could be construed from it, though I think it borders on synthesis. I don't feel strongly about it either way though.
 * I see you're right about spacing dashes. I have learned something.
 * So, I think your updated version is pretty good. I've gone ahead and used it. -kotra (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Category:Eating disorders
Discussion copied from User talk:kotra on 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There already exists a section on "eating disorders" in the vegan article. I added the appropriate category so that people researching behaviors associated with eating disorders would be able to find it. A large number of people with eating disorders become or have been vegan, the connection is real and there. The edit was not vandalism; if you feel it was, this is an issue you should take up with the people who initially inserted the discussion of "eating disorders" into the article in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaphraud (talk • contribs) 02:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of categories. Categories are to group articles that are directly about the same general topic, not to group articles that are tangentially or indirectly related to the same topic. For this reason you don't find Vomiting in Category:Eating disorders, or Veganism in Category:Herbivory. Compare Veganism with the other articles in Category:Eating disorders, and you can see it doesn't match the others. All the others are types of eating disorders or subjects directly related to eating disorders. Veganism is not an eating disorder, and the most the article says is basically that "vegetarianism [note: not veganism, but vegetarianism] may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder." That is not sufficient for Veganism to be categorized under Category:Eating disorders. Anyway, sorry for automatically assuming your edit was vandalism, I was not assuming good faith as I should have. Do you mind if I copy our discussion to Talk:Veganism, where other editors can weigh in? -kotra (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to copy the discussion into the talk page, thats not a problem. I understand that experienced vegans with a high level of nutritional education would be sensitive to having their choice classified as a disorder, that wasn't the purpose of the insertion - sorry about that. Zaphraud (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. I wasn't offended though; I would have reverted it if I didn't have vegan leanings. The issue here in my mind is that Veganism isn't sufficiently related to eating disorders to merit its inclusion in that category. Actually, as I look at the other categories, I notice Veganism is in Category:Nonviolence as well, when it probably shouldn't be, for the same reason. I've removed it accordingly. -kotra (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence
": ' Veganism is a philosophy and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. '"

I find this opening statement slighty ambiguous, mostly becuase of the vague link to "philosophy". To me it seems inappropriate to over-archingly class veganism as "a philosophy" and then go on to direct the reader to a very very generalised article on the subject. Prehaps a better wording might be:
 * "Veganism is both a lifestyle and aspect of philosophy that seeks to exlucde the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose."

Prehaps not. Nevertheless I feel that this important opening statement needs a re-wording. Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it's more a philosophical position than a philosophy itself. The philosophical position being: "animals, for some reason, should not be used for human benefit, therefore one should make an effort to abstain from using animals." more or less. The phrase is from the Vegan Society definition (read later), which used to be a quote, but has now been converted into normal text. KellenT 16:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So maybe:
 * "' Veganism is a philosophical position and lifestyle that seeks to exclude the use of animals for food, clothing, or any other purpose. '"
 * ? -kotra (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I like this version. --132 20:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * If I wanted to quibble, (and I do) I'd say that veganism is not a philosophy itself, but is a lifestyle precipitated by the philosophical position of rule utilitarianism. We do discuss in some detail the connection to utilitarianism later in the article, so my preference is to excise the term "philosophy" from the opening sentence and not use it to describe veganism.  It's clearly a lifestyle, IMO.  Skinwalker (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Veganism is not an aspect of utilitarianism. Perhaps it is for PETA and Peter Singer, but there are lots of abolitionist vegans such as Gary Francione who totally reject the utilitarian position. --N-k, 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I disagree - abolitionists use classical utilitarian arguments such as the principle of least harm, among others. Francione and Singer conflict on the role of sentience (among other things) but that does not change the basic utilitarian assumption of least harm they both share.  As for the matter at hand, I assert that veganism is a lifestyle motivated by agreement with a philosophical position (whether it be utilitarian, abolitionist, or whatever), and does not in and of itself represent a philosophy.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you're right--I would have to give the matter more thought. In any case, I never suggested that veganism should be called a philosophy. I agree that it should be called a lifestyle, since people of radically different philosophical backgrounds (abolitionist, welfarist, religious, etc.) are essentially practicing the same thing. --N-k, 00:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus seems to be that "philosophical position" is preferred over "philosophy", so I've changed it. If we want to excise "philosophical position" altogether and just leave "lifestyle", we can discuss that. -kotra (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know I'm splitting hairs here, but I think we need to dump the phrase "philosophical position" altogether from the opening sentence. I argue above that it is a consequence of a philosophy (or philosophical position, whathaveyou), but I realize after some thought that it excludes people who choose to be vegan solely for health reasons.  I'd really like to just indicate that it's a lifestyle.  Skinwalker (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. The health reason you give is the most convincing for me, because although the number of people who are vegan for solely health reasons (and not philosophical reasons) is probably small, it still exists. If there are no objections, I'll remove "philosophical position". Also, I wonder if it would be better to say "diet and lifestyle" instead of just "lifestyle", because at least in my experience, the diet part is the most recognized and crucial aspect of veganism by far. And I have rarely heard of the "vegan lifestyle", but often heard of the "vegan diet". -kotra (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen no objection, so I've removed "philosophical position". Anything wrong with "diet and lifestyle"? -kotra (talk) 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Deforestation
Under the resources & the environment section, there is this sentence:

"'It has been noted that the production of some vegan food substitutes like soy, used to produce soymilk amongst other items, is partly to blame for the deforestation of rainforests.'"

I looked at the references for that sentence, and neither one mentions soymilk or any other dairy or meat analogue. In fact, the only mention of the use of the soy threatening deforestation is this:

"'The main products derived from soybeans are soy meal (the world’s main oil meal for animal feed) and soy oil (the world’s most consumed vegetable oil).'" (emphasis added)

What I'm getting at is that this doesn't seem to be related to veganism in any particularly meaningful way. Soy meal is primarily an animal feed, and for human consumption it's likely used in as much non-vegan food as it is in vegan food. It's a common ingredient in many processed foods. Soy oil is used in almost every deep fryer, everywhere, and it's often what we buy when we get an unnamed "vegetable oil."

Additionally, it looks like someone tried to add a rebuttal:

"'However, massive amounts of soy are used as animal feed rather than for direct human consumption. And while it takes several pounds of soy to produce a single pound of meat, a single pound of soy can be used to produce several pounds of soy-based foods for humans.'"

Massive amounts of soy in relation to what? Total soy production? Total human consumption? Compared to corn-based feed? What constitutes massiveness? The first half of the of the second sentence looks true, and a reference could probably be found for it, but the second half looks like it would only be true for vegan Jesus. You can't make more than a pound of food from one pound of any product.

I think that we should remove this paragraph since it's only tangentially related to veganism, doesn't reproduce the references' statements, and also contains some dubious claims. Djk3 (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The topic of soybean demand increasing rainforest deforestation is very relevant to veganism, and it has become a common concern/accusation about the subject of veganism. It just needs to be rewritten to better match the references. I propose:


 * The increasing demand for soybean products is partially responsible for the increasing deforestation of the Amazon rainforest. However, the majority of this demand is in the form of livestock feed and soybean oil, two products that a vegan diet is unlikely to have a greater demand for than non-vegan diets.


 * Just finished scouring Google Scholar for more sources, particularly for the last part, which is currently uncited. The best I found was this, which would have been great, but it requires a subscription. Oh well. Otherwise, what do you think of this rewrite? -kotra (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No, your version fails for the same reasons: (1) Neither of the sources mention veganism, so there is no "accusation" that veganism is helping ruin the rainforest (2) the 'rebuttal' part of the sentence makes it a zero-sum ("consumption of soy products is probably not the leading cause of rainforest destruction"), so we might as well leave the whole thing out (3) the last clause of your version is uncited (4) ultimately, the "consumption of soy products" might turn out to be a contributor to rainforest destruction, but this means jack all to veganism, and that criticism should go in the soy article. To include some text like this, we need a journal article that shows that vegans eat more soy products, that these products come from rainforest-grown soy, and that their consumption of soy outweighs that of the soy consumed indirectly by non-vegans in the form of meat. KellenT 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I fetched that article; it doesn't support your "demand is greater" phrasing, but it does compare diets, and has these conclusions (quoted):
 * Some results were predictable and have been largely confirmed in our study:
 * (1) Within the same method of production, the ‘normal’ unbalanced diet turns out to have the greatest impact on the environment.
 * (2) Within the same method of production, a greater consumption of animal products translates to a greater impact on the environment.
 * (3) Within the same dietary pattern, chemical–conventional production methods have a greater environmental impact than organic methods.
 * KellenT 11:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to nuke those sentences myself. They should be removed if, for no other reason, the sources draw no connection to veganism, so inclusion here is WP:SYN. Other reasons might include the horrible anonymous-contributor style of: "OH! and here's this random fact that might be interpreted negatively" then "OH! but here's another factoid that might be interpreted positively." I hate when articles read like that and we should do our best to avoid it, by swiftly removing text which has no bearing on the subject, by removing tit-for-tat "however, ..." replies to every neg/pos point, and by integrating the two points if indeed they are both valid (which they are often not). KellenT 11:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your point. Neither of the references mention veganism, so based on them, the subject has no relevance to this article. However, I personally have seen this argument (that vegans/vegetarians contribute to deforestation due to their soy consumption) crop up fairly often recently, so if we can find a reliable source documenting the argument, then it should certainly be included. It doesn't matter if the argument is wrong, if it's a relatively common argument, it should be mentioned (with a sourced rebuttal, of course). You may personally dislike these criticism/rebuttal sections, but they are very common in Good Articles and (in my opinion) essential for a fuller understanding of the subject. As long, of course, as they are relevant to the topic, and well-sourced.
 * But for now, I agree that the paragraph in question doesn't assert relevance to veganism, so should be removed. -kotra (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't actually critiquing crit/rebut sections, but the trend having of many low-level contributors to a contentious article result in an entire article filled with "statement. however, alternate statement. statement. however, alternate statement." which is bad writing and often grounded upon bad fact checking/synthesis. KellenT 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As a carnivore, I find the argument that vegan-destined soy contributes to deforestation section to be... well, stupid. The soy/tofurkey/vegans connection is obviated by the massive amounts of soy that go into animal feed as compared to tofu or soy bacon or whatever. This, I don't think, is disputable. Archer Daniels Midland didn't get rich by feeding hippies. Skinwalker (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But if it's a notable enough concern that is documented in a reliable source, I still think it should be mentioned. But that criteria hasn't been met yet, as far as I know. -kotra (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resources and the Environment (developing countries reference)
The paragraph in the Section "Resources and the Environment" in reference to the developing world was added in order to provide context to this section. Before my post, the section only covered the perspective of developed countries and excluded the actions of developing countries. Wikipedia has constantly requested from its contributors to provide a global perspective to topics. If we do not want to discuss a balanced approach to the topic "Resources and the Environment", then we should completely remove the section from the veganism page. DivaNtrainin (talk) 10:22, 04 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I understand the logic of that, except that it starts moving this article very far astray from its topic. Could not the first couple of paragraphs in this section clearly state that these environmental problems are specific to animal agriculture in developed countries? It seems that that would exclude many developing countries, subsistance agriculture, etc. without having to actually go into explaining why. Bob98133 (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Vegan Nutrition Article Still Exists
Earlier in the discussion page we reached the decision to delete the Vegan nutrition article, since it's in a shambles, and its material is already covered in this article. However, it still has not been deleted. I propose that now is the time to voice objections to its deletion. If no one has any objections, let's go ahead and get rid of it. --N-k, 00:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've proposed deletion, so if there are no objections in 5 days, an admin should delete it. You can help by seconding the proposed deletion. KellenT 11:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Kellen. --N-k, 14:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"oh but that's against the vegan society definition"
I removed:
 * However, inclusion of honey and silk are contrary to the definition of veganism given by the Vegan Society.

Saying this after explicitly noting that honey & silk are "by definition animal products" is redundant, bad writing, and an example of someone attempting to advance a personal agenda ("people who eat honey aren't vegan"). The citations are just references back to other sources already used in the article. KellenT 15:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

German numbers
This was removed:
 * The website VeganWelt estimates there to be between 250,000 and 460,500 vegans in Germany, or between 0.3% and 0.5% of the German population.

German WP cites both the veganwelt site and the study which replaced it here. KellenT 15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Jarvis Section
If it must exist, place it in a Criticism section. It's former location in "ethical concerns" was misplaced. The polemic had nothing to say about veganism and ethics. Abe Froman (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Abe, blanking the section is not acceptable. Numerous editors have complained about the "lack of criticism" in the article and have cited Jarvis as a critic. I agree that the section organization isn't ideal, but the section belongs more in "ethics" (read: "ethical/spiritual/religious concerns") than in "environment", etc. If you want to remove the section, do a better job of justifying yourself and don't just blank the section, then revert. KellenT 22:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's simply criticism, so put it in a Criticism section. There are no ethics discussed by Jarvis in his polemic.  I'll wait 24 hours to see what you do.  Abe Froman (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have a particularly strong view on this, but if the "polemic" is to stay, which I think it probably should, then its current location appears to be appropriate, at least for the moment. Like Kellen, I'm not that keen on the structure of sections, or indeed their labels. Why, for example, is this section called Ethical concerns and not just Ethics? I think Vegan ethics have been written about in enough detail to simply call them Vegan ethics and not "concerns" as though they were an after thought. I quite like the Vegetarianism structure which has a top category of "Reasons for..." and then Ethics, Religion, Environmental, etc as sub categories. Whether or not Criticism should get its own section, or whether criticism should be documented throughout the article in response to vegan "tenets", I'm not sure. --Richardob (talk) 10:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As I say below, I've put in a criticism section and put the Davis and Jarvis bits in there. I'm open to the idea of having criticism throughout the whole article (indeed it's there in the Environment bit, though that's really badly laid out) but for both Davis - who has been comprehensively rebutted - and Jarvis, who doesn't actually SAY anything apart from telling us that he doesn't like veganism or trust vegans (or vegetarianism and vegetarians, in fact), I can't see that they belong anywhere else other than a specific section on criticism. If Jarvis is to go under ethics, then he needs to be talking about ethics and maybe addressing or rebutting points made by the pro-vegans there. He doesn't. That's why it's a polemic and belongs in a criticism section. Steve3742 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think Davis might go in ethics under the Tom Regan paragraph, as he is trying to address Regan's argument. So I think I'll move it there. Steve3742 (talk) 12:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This section is RIDICULOUS! It's not a "Criticisms" section at all.  It's simply an INOCULATION section, designed to bring up straw-man arguments and "disprove" them.  You can't call it criticism if you briefly mention a contradictory viewpoint and then add 75-100 words disagreeing with the information.  Steven Davis' research findings are summarized in one or two sentences, but quickly followed up with the opinions of Gaverick Matheny (a Ph.D. CANDIDATE, mind you!) in an effort to disprove Davis.  William Jarvis is described as ATTACKING ideologic vegetarians, and rather than fully describing his theories, the most extreme statements are dragged into the open and then quashed as if that's all the man had to say.  The truth is, you vegetarians and vegans are a cult, and you're impervious to reason or scientific findings.  You are operating from emotion and Confirmation Bias, and nothing that anyone says will make a difference.


 * With your last 2 sentences you pretty much destroyed any point you were trying to make, if you want to make a change be constructive, these kinds of comments help no one. Muleattack (talk) 04:16, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Criticism section doesn't criticize the subject. It defends the subject against some criticism briefly mentioned. I mean, the point of the criticism section, isn't it to offer alternative takes on a subject's support? This section seems like it was designed to say critisism of veganism is ridiculous. Apple Cider III (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there shouldn't be a criticism section at all, I mean, is it really necessary? Vegetarianism doesn't have a criticism section, cbhristianity doesn't have one either (not saying that veganism is a religion). The contents of the section basically are statements saying that all vegans are hypocrites and then rebuttals. Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another. If the criticisms were that veganism was somehow harmful to the environment or to people other than those who are vegans then I'd understand it. As it is it's pointless imho and should go. Muleattack (talk) 09:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some other diet-lifestyle pages have criticism sections, or at least sections pointing out research contradicting (or purporting to contradict) health claims of proponents. See Paleo_diet or Raw_foodism for examples. If there is a criticism section, it should def be well sourced and have diverse opinions. Jaybird vt (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Davis Section
I've shortened the Davis section and its rebuttal by Gaverick Matheny to one paragraph. It seems to me that Davis made an argument that was completely disproved by Matheny and the article should reflect this. As this happened in 2003 and as Davis has not countered Matheny's rebuttal in the intervening five years, I think we can say that Matheny has proved his point and that Davis accepts this, if only tacitly. If anyone knows of a defence made by Davis (or anyone else) to Matheny's rebuttal, I'd be interested in seeing it. There's a case to be made for moving this and the Jarvis paragraph to a Criticism section. I may do that. Steve3742 (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed quotes from references - diff marked here
In this diff, I removed the use of the "|quote" field from the references used in this article. The heavy use of quotes resulted in significantly reduced navigability of the References section. If anyone wishes to work the material from the quotes into the article, you may use the above diff. Feedback welcome. Whatever404 (talk) 22:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've reverted your changes. The quote parameter exists to allow editors (us) to provide the exact text which supports using a particular source as a reference; essentially to demonstrate that yes, this source really does say something which can support the article text. Additionally, the quote parameter provides a way to include text for offline and fee-dependent sources which are otherwise relatively difficult to access for readers and other editors. Your difficulty in navigating the references section is extremely minimal compared to these positive benefits. Perhaps you don't know that you can click on the numbered references in the article and your browser will jump to that specific citation? KellenT 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for attempting to tutor me as to why the quote parameter exists; I was already aware of the reason. This article is an example of flagrant overuse of it.  The links to the article are given so that individuals can read them where they are hosted.  Bringing entire paragraphs into the References section is inappropriate.
 * It was highly rude of you to describe the difficulty I described as my own personal problem, rather than a legitimate concern that we might discuss. Dismissing other editors' concerns is not a good way to build rapport with us.  In many cases where the quote parameter has been used, the quote listed has nothing to do with the subsequently-added instances of the reference.  Rather than denigrate me, why not take the time to fix this problem? Whatever404 (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're finding rudeness where it doesn't exist. You indicated you had a problem with navigating the references, I meant to point out that there's built-in navigation where the references are relevant. I disagree that there is an over-use of the quote parameter, and even if I agreed with you, you removed some quotes that are relevant since they are from print-only publications (e.g. Singer's Animal Liberation). Very often people will throw up a reference to a large article in which the connection between article text and citation isn't at all clear (sometimes they're not related at all and the editor only wants to give the impression of legitimacy). Use of the quote parameter provides direct access to the text that the adding editor believes supports the article text. I believe this encourages better fact-checking and collaboration between editors, and that it adds greatly to the ability of readers to verify the content of the article. KellenT 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also reverted your removal of cited material (it's inaccessible because it's fee-based?) and your "formatting" which removed the author's name. You might try using one of the citation templates if you want to clean up unformatted references. KellenT 05:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have a nasty attitude. I have never met you before, and your two responses have made me immediately dislike you, because you were so rude.  Mocking me with scare quotes, really?  You expect that these kinds of responses will result in a pleasant, civil atmosphere for everyone who edits this page?
 * The reasons for my removal couldn't have been that 1) the author parameter had not been used and 2) listing the author isn't terribly important when it's an op-ed piece in a major newspaper, could it?
 * Yes, the reference is inaccessible because it is fee-based. A situation where members of one class of editors are able to access certain material and discuss it while members of another cannot is inherently classist, and I take offense to it.  Whatever404 (talk) 10:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi! I think you've read my terse writing as being denigrating and rude, when I am and was attempting only to be clear. The reference we're talking about used no citation template, you removed the author's name and added a comma; better would have been to use the cite news template. Please feel free to do that; I'll probably do it myself in the near future if you don't get to it first. The removal of the text which is supported by fee-based sources is inappropriate. That many journals have only fee-based online access is unfortunate and maybe classist, but it's also not our (wikipedia/wikipedia editors) problem; the journal and the facts/whatever in them still exist and are valid to cite in an article. Your offense is justified, to some degree, but it should be directed towards those journals who require controlled publication in order to extract some profit from scientific research. KellenT 11:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, chill out. I've never known Kellen to be anything other than polite and collaborative. If you indicate which fee-based sources you want to read, other editors of this page can try and find PDFs through our work or school access. If we can find them, we can privately email them to you. Or, we can summarize the abstract. Often you can find abstracts yourself through Pubmed. While I'm a big fan of open access journals, they are relatively new and we can't just exclude important sources that aren't available online. That would exclude as a source virtually every copyrighted work published in the last 70 years. Skinwalker (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a brief third fourth opinion: From my viewpoint, Kellen has not been rude in this discussion (as of this posting). He has been polite and explained his views clearly and nonconfrontationally. The use of "scare quotes" might have been slightly sarcastic, but it was justified because removal of content is not the same as formatting. -kotra (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism
"William Jarvis, writing for The National Council Against Health Fraud, characterizes veganism as 'a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers,' who revel 'in self-denial and wars against pleasure,' and who 'cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm.'"

This seems to be a sweeping generalisation against vegans rather than any verifiable criticism of veganism itself, I think there could be valid arguments in a criticism section but I don't think that this brings anything to the article. --Quazu (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to remove it for now, please add to the discussion if anybody puts it back, besisdes from these claims being (in my opinion) totally absurd, the writer has obviously never heard that in polite discourse you attack arguments rather than the people making them. Surely any notable criticisms would be in reference to health. Again, the quote isn't actually a criticism of veganism and doesn't even give any rationale for his viewpoints. --Quazu (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Jarvis quote is not appropriate for this article. In Jarvis' context, veganism could be replaced with any other movement or philosophy, so it speaks more toward human behavior than veganism. Bob98133 (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This quote worked better before it was (very sloppily) split off from the other part of his criticism. The main purpose was to give context to his assertion that vegans somehow support letting vipers and mosquitos run loose. I suggest reverting back to my version of Jarvis' crit and perhaps we should just cave in and throw all this shit in a criticism section for now, for lack of a better emergent structure in the article. I have advocated integrated criticism throughout the article where appropriate, but it seems to read rather sloppily especially when we get into point-counterpoint-countercounterpoint as with regan-davis-matheny. KellenT 17:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't recall the full version, but even so, it is just opinion. If he had statistics to show that more vegans die from snake bites or that the mosquito population is affected by vegans, fine. But it is his OR to equate not harming any beings with hugging vipers or mosquitos. It is not supported by any real research, it's just an opinion, and I don't think the speaker or the source make it noteworthy enough to include. Real criticisms, supported by real references, should be in the article, but this is bogus. Bob98133 (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The full version read:
 * William Jarvis, writing for The National Council Against Health Fraud, characterizes veganism as "a hygienic religion that meets deep emotional needs of its followers," who revel "in self-denial and wars against pleasure," and who "cannot be trusted to be objective, reliable sources of information on anything that bears upon its fundamental paradigm." Jarvis attacks "ideologic vegetarians," whom he claims believe that "all life is sacred" and that "all forms of life have equal value," saying that these beliefs "can lead to absurdities such as allowing mosquitoes to spread malaria, or vipers to run loose on one's premises."
 * I wish to note that I wrote this text section in response to repeated additions of Jarvis as a critic of veganism (probably just because he's easily googleable). He is a member or whatever of The National Council Against Health Fraud, which has its own WP article. Your charge of "OR" here is actually beside the point; WP's OR policy is about editors doing OR, not 3rd-party-published-authors doing OR. His criticism is real enough, and he's published, and these publications are referenced. KellenT 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What Jarvis says is not a criticism of veganism but an attempt to alter the definition. If you look in the lead, veganism is not a religion, so he is not even commenting, but is redefining the term to suit his position. If this info is so valuable, it should certainly be in the lead that "veganism is a diet, lifestyle or religion..." Bob98133 (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * He's saying that veganism serves the same role as a religion, not that it literally is one. And no, it is not a religion. KellenT 20:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that scientific or ethical criticism of veganism (i.e. based on some sort of reasoned argument) is valid for inclusion here, but Jarvis's comments just seems like anti-vegan rhetoric. I don't feel that this sort of thing is encyclopedic unless we're discussing anti-vegan prejudice.--Michig (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * His criticism is: (1) people adopt veganism/vegetarianism for emotional needs, justified by "all life is sacred" (2) because of this they unreasonably defend vegetarianism (e.g. in his view when it is damaging to health) (3) the "all life" justification is flawed in so far as it leads to "absurdities." KellenT 21:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * But is this criticism justified by any sort of research or evidence or is it just bigotry? I don't think any article should present bigotry as valid criticism. --Michig (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if one believes that 'all life is sacred' (imho) this leads to the absurdities Jarvis is talking about. Most vegans (I would guess) don't believe this, but for example Kucinich says he believes this. Do people follow veganism to the detriment of their health? Well, yes; people get deficiencies, people accidentally malnourish their children, etc. Does this happen to most vegans? Highly unlikely. Badly informed criticism? Mischaracterizing of normal vegan/vegetarianism? Yes. Bigotry? I dunno. KellenT 21:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone had evidence that most vegans hold these beliefs then it may be valid to criticise that, but characterizing a group of people based on unjustified stereotypes, and then extrapolating that to come up with ridiculous scenarios is par for the course for bigots. Evidence of health problems due to a vegan diet would be entirely appropriate, and as a vegan myself would not be something that I would want to keep out of the article. The arguments put forward for veganism include ethical, health, animal welfare/rights, and environmental issues. Criticism putting forward reasoned arguments that veganism is detrimental to any of these areas would be appropriate. I've never heard anyone suggest that Malaria should be allowed to spread to protect mosquitos, or that people should let poisonous snakes roam around their homes, so criticism based on those assertions doesn't seem to me to be remotely valid. Including it would serve to show how ridiculous some of the anti-vegan arguments are, perhaps.--Michig (talk) 07:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. I understand what Jarvis is saying. I don't even disagree. However, how relevant is it that a vegan can't be trusted as a source of information about veganism or nutrition? Just being vegan wouldn't pass the Wiki standard as a trusted source either. Any source, whether religious or sectarian, has to have a real reference. So what is this guy saying of value? Seems like he's stating the obvious so that it sounds like a criticism. And he doesn't say it is like a religion, he says it is "a hygienic religion" - sure - he's probably not speaking literally, but that what he's quoted as saying. I didn't see many google hits for this guy and the website referenced is a bit hokey looking. Bob98133 (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I included those quotes to add context for how Jarvis perceives vegans. I believe he wrongly perceives them and then mischaracterizes them based upon his experience as a 7th day adventist (the second citation references his religious history). Without this context the other quotes make a lot less sense (they were added to the article by several editors long, long ago). KellenT 21:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jarvis section (as it now stands) is just a criticism of the speciesism claim. But surely there are better articulated criticism of speciesism out there that can be used?--Dodo bird (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I split it off because it seemed there were two parts to the quote (indeed, they were taken from different magazines.) In one bit, he was attacking the idea of speciesism using a reduction ad absurdium, and I figured this could go under Singer's section. The second bit seemed to me to have very little value at all other than saying he didn't like or trust vegetarians. I left that in a Criticism section as it seemed general criticism. It certainly added nothing to his critique of speciesism. There's an argument for saying that comment was worthless and should be deleted (as it has been.)Steve3742 (talk) 13:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Aside from any consideration of bias, the addition of the Jarvis quote at the bottom of the 'Ethics' is just bad writing. It doesn't flow from the preceeding paragraph, and is completely unrelated to ethics. It belongs in a seperate section. "I wish to note that I wrote this text section in response to repeated additions of Jarvis as a critic of veganism" (Kellen) is the only reason Jarvis should be included on this page, and even then only until better criticism is found. It is hard to quote this article as a general criticism of veganism since so much of it is specific to extremists and personal anecdotes, but perhaps consider something like:

William Jarvis, writing for the Nutrition & Health Forum newsletter, criticised "ideological vegetarians", claiming it to be "riddled with delusional thinking from which even scientists and medical professionals are not immune". He suggests (without reference) "one need not eliminate meat from one's diet [..] Apparently, it is ample consumption of fruits and vegetables, not the exclusion of meat, that makes vegetarianism healthful."

(meta question: does (without reference) violate NPOV, or is it valid observation? It is a statement of fact...)

(FWIW The Davis quote is relevant and fits nicely inline in the ethics section)

Xaviershay (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On a second reading of the entire article, the Jarvis quote is not needed and should be removed. Each section contains a healthy amount of criticism and alternatives. Previous I stated "and even then only until better criticism is found", I now don't believe this to be the case. A separate section just for his criticism is overkill. It's inclusion does not make the article more 'unbiased', instead it compromises its quality. We should apply the same standard of quality to criticism as we do to the topic at hand. Xaviershay (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, "without reference" would violate NPOV since you're inserting implicit criticism into the article text. I don't think Jarvis is particularly important, but he's one of the most easily google-able critics of veganism. I think his crit was written better before the removal of the other sentence. My personal evaluation of his critique stands above. KellenT 07:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering - has anyone mentioned anything about Davis' arguement not having anything to do with veganism - but with overpopulation? isnt that what he is really talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourmetis (talk • contribs) 08:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, he's critiquing Reagan's conclusion about vegetarianism being morally required. Nothing to do with overpopulation. KellenT 11:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Cow
I have removed the image of the cow ready for slaughter as it is clearly meant to offend people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.107.49 (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That had also occurred to me before. I support this removal. -kotra (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Object. The issue was brought up many times before and there are pretty good points of having this kind of images. Quote (1):
 * It suited well with the article and subject. This page is in desperate need of at least one of those pictures that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect. More people than vegans are aware of animal cruelty, so a realistic picture can hardly be considered propaganda.--Sigurdas (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am indifferent about the image being included, however, Signurdas' logic for including it is weak. While vegans may be concerned with animal cruelty (many are not), there isn't really a direct connection between the two subjects. Veganism is a life style chosen for any number of reasons, so it is an unwarranted assumption that animal cruelty is the motivating factor. As Signurdas says, "one of those pictures that that illustrates animal suffering due to human neglect." The picture may well illustrate that, but does not particularly illustrate Veganism.Bob98133 (talk) 14:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am probably biased on this issue since I personally sympathise with animal rights, however, the image of the cow in a slaughterhouse makes pretty good connection with the ethical concerns of veganism - it picturizes what many vegans are usually against of. It does not mean that all vegans condemn animal slaughtering practices - but in this actual section the ethics of veganism are being described, and nothing else. --Sigurdas (talk) 14:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This kind of issues a came across with in various discussions. Being biased as well i do however think that those people feeling offended by any picture should be respected. I remember a proposal that seemed quite reasonable to me which tried to clearly label those pictures (be it of dead people/animals/nudity) and only to be shown before the explicit consent of the user. One wouldon the one hand be able to document very clearly, what is going on in the world and on the other hand respect people's feelings who dont whish for whatever reason to be exposed to it.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, whether a picture is offensive or not is quite irrelevant to its inclusion in Wikipedia. The picture of a cow about to be slaughtered very well illustrates what brings many people to choose to be vegans and it is thus quite relevant to include it. I don't see why we should spare those who eat animals the simple and well-known facts about what eating animals means and about why some people choose not to eat them. The very idea that we should censor WP in such a way seems very strange to me. David Olivier (talk) 16:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont see any censorship in letting everybode be free to chose what kind ot pictures to watch at. do you?--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If people don't want to know why others choose to be vegans, then they shouldn't go to the article on veganism. If you want to know about veganism, you presumably want to know about why people are vegans, and since a central reason for that is their refusing what is done to animals, a picture of what is done to animals is a normal part of the information you are looking for. David Olivier (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While this image is somewhat related to the topic, is it actually informative? Everyone knows that killing happens in slaughterhouses, so I don't know what article-relevant information the image imparts. If it is not informative, then we should remove it due to its offensive nature, as per WP:Profanity. We do have a responsibility to consider if images will be offensive, as that guideline explicitly details: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." This image looks to me like it's only used as PETA-style "shock" propaganda, which really has no place in Wikipedia as per both WP:NPOV and WP:Profanity. Speaking as someone who is vegan for animal welfare reasons, I can certainly see the desire to include this image, and I agree there should be greater awareness of slaughterhouses and the plight of livestock animals. But Wikipedia is not the place for that (except on articles like Slaughterhouse). -kotra (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Censorship" is less of an issue for me than editorial judgement. This image may be better used at slaughterhouse, as kotra notes.  Why don't we replace it with something like this?  Less shock, more positive, eh?  Skinwalker (talk) 05:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that surabhi cows are still considered property, so vegan orgs and at least Regan and Francione would probably object to this, so in this way the image is relevant, but it dodges around the rather important issue of killing and also around the other important issue of factory farming as it is practiced in the west. Taking milk from a surabhi cow and producing milk from a factory farmed cow are vastly different things. KellenT 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * For using the cow image (or some similar image): (1) directly relates to the intro sentence about 'vegan orgs' specifically the vegan outreach arguments around factory farming (2) directly relates to Singer's 'even though killing animals isn't wrong, we probably shouldn't eat meat' argument (3) could be interpreted as an instance of non-"respectful treatment" to which Regan objects


 * Against using it: (1) perceived POV in the article (2) there might be a more representative image

I find the charges that the image is "offensive" or somehow profane to be disingenuous; the image does not show an exaggerated situation, it does not contain blood or gore, it's not especially filthy, nor does it overdramatize the situation. The caption is terse and free of appeals to emotion. Whether the image is the best choice to illustrate the section is a purely editorial decision. I think it works, but I'm not at all attatched to it, so if a better image was proposed I could support changing the image. KellenT 10:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The current alternative proposals are to just delete the image or to replace it with another much less relevant one. I oppose that. A central motivation of vegans is their opposition to what is done to animals in the process of the production of animal products. As Kellen says, the current image is not at all exaggerated, it blandly shows an important aspect of what is done to the animals. Yes, I find the image offensive, just as I find images such as those on pages about the Holocaust or world famine or cancer or 9/11 offensive; I would rather that what they depict didn't exist.


 * Concerning the idea that the picture would be more relevant on a page about slaughter: perhaps it would be even more relevant there, but it remains relevant here. Slaughter is an essential aspect of current animal husbandry, and vegans ar centrally motivated by their opposition to animal husbandry and particularly to slaughter; so at least one picture of slaughter is relevant here.


 * I find it absurd to suggest the picture is uninformative profanity. It is informative, in that it gives a more concrete image of what happens during slaughter. Yes, I too find it obscene, and I'm happy that all here seem to agree; but that obscene act is repeated some 200 million times a day in the world, and it seems only normal to give a picture of it.


 * David Olivier (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kellen and David Olivier that this image meets the article and this particular section it is embedded in. If a better alternative is to be suggested I can see myself agreeing on some new pic - however, Surabhi Cow is not a good one since it is highly uninformative towards the subject in matter.--Sigurdas (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (response to Kellen) Thank you for explaining the relevance of the image. Just to recap, then, the assertion is that this image is relevant and informative because it illustrates the following sentences:


 * Vegan organizations maintain that animals have rights, and as such it is not ethical to use animals in ways that infringe those rights.


 * Singer does not contend that killing animals is always wrong, but that from a practical standpoint it is "better to reject altogether the killing of animals for food, unless one must do so to survive."


 * Philosopher Tom Regan argues that animals are entities which possess "inherent value" and therefore have "basic moral rights," and that the principal moral right they possess is "the right to respectful treatment."


 * All three of these statements are somewhat vague philosophical statements, and none of them (except possibly the second, which is slightly more specific) are directly related to the image (a cow being restrained for slaughter). It takes a little interpretation to connect the dots between "cow being restrained for slaughter" to "infringement of animal rights". On the other hand, I can see how the image is at least indirectly related (and possibly directly related to the second quote, about killing animals for food), so I think the image can probably stay, despite its objectionable nature and in the absence of a less objectionable alternative. It may need some clarification to make clear its relevance, though. I suggest adding a sentence like this to the image caption: "Vegan ethicists typically consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights." Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It beats me how you can see such a gap between the philosophical statements you cite and the picture of a cow being slaughtered — other than the gap that always exists between a general philosophical statement (general, rather than vague) and a specific fact. I think that for any vegan, of whatever specific philosophical flavour, an image of an animal being slaughtered is a good illustration of what they oppose. To speak of the dots to connect between "cow being restrained for slaughter" and "infringement of animal rights" seems really strange. Of course it is possible, and interesting, to elaborate on the connection, but on the face of it the connection is obvious for most anyone. David Olivier (talk) 22:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "the gap that always exists between a general philosophical statement and a specific fact": this is what I meant. I wasn't claiming that there was any sort of lack of connection between the two, just that for most people the connection is not immediately apparent unless they think about it for a little bit. Sort of like connecting the broad idea of "Evolution" with a picture of a fossil. There's a connection, but it probably should be explained, at least briefly. Yes, for people like you and me, it's obvious that a "cow being restrained for slaughter" and "infringement of animal rights" are intrinsically related. But keep in mind that it's not as apparent for most people. Many people don't even recognize the concept of "animal rights". But I'm beginning to stray off topic. Is there any reason not to include such a sentence as I gave above? I'm open to a different wording, if you think it could be improved. -kotra (talk) 22:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your suggested wording would work as a caption for the image, at least as representing Regan and Francione. For Regan, it would be the cow's right not to be harmed which was being infringed upon, and for Francione it would be its right not to be treated as property. For Singer, I don't think the statement holds as well. In particular, Singer doesn't recognize any rights, just interests, and therefore would have to argue here that the interests of the cow outweigh the interests of those who want to kill and eat it, or want it to be killed so they can eat it, or whatever. The welfare/rights approaches lead to difficulty in formulating a non-awkward sounding caption. Saying "vegan ethicists" is wrong, since we actually don't know if Regan, e.g., is vegan, we just know that he advocates animal rights, and we can't say just "ethicists" since there's a lot of those who aren't vegan and don't have a problem with using animals. Saying "rights" is also wrong, as explained above, more accurate might be "the interests or rights." So. Yeah. I'll try to construct a better wording tomorrow maybe, getting all the conditions right and the prose balanced is just too much for my brain at the moment. KellenT 21:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How about the same as before, just "Some" instead of "Vegan" and removing "typically"? So, instead of:


 * Vegan ethicists typically consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights.


 * it would be:


 * Some ethicists consider the slaughter of animals to be an infringement upon their rights.


 * If it needs a citation, those already used for Regan and Francione could then be cited, I think? -kotra (talk) 00:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I hadn't heard any objections, I went ahead and added the sentence. -kotra (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought I would point out that if one was looking to prove relevancy of this cow image under 'Ethics', perhaps it would be a good idea to include a second image in the same section that shows a different ethical concern of animal use other than the killing of them? This might sate those against showing the cow image. Not sure what I'd think of putting though, maybe a Zoo animal? Eddie mars (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding issues
Outstanding issues in the article: Totally outstanding! KellenT 13:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The german food consumption study numbers are extrapolated from a graph, see de:Diskussion:Veganismus. I'm not sure how to cite this properly and I'm think we might want to bring back the veganwelt.de stats.
 * Benefits subsection of Health needs more coherence and the PCRM food groups text should get integrated somewhere or nuked.
 * Cite needed for "Benefits of vegetarian diets might be valid also for strict vegan diets"
 * Resources and environment subsection needs heavy editing, less commentary, and better citations.
 * Critiques of veganism are mainly in (a) ethics and (b) environment sections, essentially challenging justifications for veganism on these grounds. The Davis/Matheny bit is awkward in the middle of the ethics section and the Jarvis critique is awkwardly presented and lacks context. Can anybody think of a better way to deal with these besides moving them into a "critiques and criticism" section, or is that the best option?


 * Do any other editors have opinions on these things? Or want to do them? KellenT 09:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't recommend the VeganWelt Data as it is absolutely inscrutable, where it comes from. Being a private Homepage it might as well be made up. I also don't see any problems in the extrapolation from the NVSII. Eventhough it might not be a fully acurate figure it gives a good idea about the dimension of the proportion vegan population, which is what those polls are usually about.--Tom Bradschetl (talk) 12:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Anybody else care to comment on these issues? or do some work on them? KellenT 15:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Anybody? KellenT 21:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, the DEFRA study. It was removed based upon the claim of a random WP editor, who never followed up. Anybody have any opinion on including that study again? KellenT 19:06, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Bias
This article is pretty biased, with all the talk about how great the diet is and no criticisms.

Thewritingwriter17 —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC).


 * I didn't notice where it says how great the diet is. The benefits are listed as are the precautions. If there are valid, referenced criticisms of the diet please discuss them, or add them to the article in the appropriate place with refs. Thanks. Bob98133 (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can reference my own criticism. How about that vegetarianism is simply lowering the bar for the classification of sentient. It's a slippery slope form of thought. Do a thought experiment about the future discovery that plants are distributed networks and thus sentient on a whole. They still can't make an argument for how carnivores could become vegetarians (lucky we are omnivores). The best argument yet, the definition does not address using products made from third world countries where people work in sweat shops and are abused. Therefore is it logical to bypass sympathy on the highest rank in the sentient tree for lower sentient organisms? Another thought experiment. Suppose there was an sentient being that felt no pain or remorse or emotion, under the definition on Wikipedia, it would be ok to eat this being. That seems like a logical contradiction to me. Cflare (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Your thought experiments aside, if you find a reliable source elucidating your criticism, feel free to include it in the article. Otherwise, it would constitute original research, which is inadmissible. -kotra (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1. This is the article for veganism, not vegetarianism. 2. People are animals. 3. This is not the place for discussing silly hypothetical situations, as Kotra said, if you have something to add to the article that you can verify with a reliable source then please do. If not then why not try trolling some forums, I hear that vegetarian and vegan forums don't get enough people pointing out hypocrisies. Muleattack (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I also was irritated by the bias of the article. Here are a few suggestions for improval:


 * Remove the "Ethical concerns" section. It is a random collection of pro-vegan quotes. It's also redundant as there is better content at Ethics of eating meat
 * Rename "Precautions" to "Dangers": "Benefits and Dangers" is definitely more balanced than "Benefits and Precautions"
 * Remove the "Addressing criticism of veganism, Dr. Amy..." part from "Pregnancies and children", as this is irrelevant for all but one of the cited cases, but casts doubt on all of them. Also, there have been much more cases of childrens killed by a vegan diet worldwide, I can remember at least two prominent ones from my country.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.135.86.107 (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? Random collection of quotes? Really? KellenT 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "Ethical concerns" section should go. It's necessary to explain why people become vegan, and the article would be significantly lacking in coverage without it. It could maybe use reliably sourced counter-arguments (though I'm not totally convinced that would be appropriate), but that is a separate concern. As for the "Benefits and Precautions" section, I can see changing it to "Benefits and Dangers"; even though "Precautions" is more accurate in my mind, I agree that "Dangers" is more balanced, and balance (NPOV) outweighs my own understanding of the diet. As for the quote, it clearly states "the child" (singular), but I've changed the wording so it's even clearer anyway. Removing the quote entirely for the reason you give would be overkill. -kotra (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In the article on meat, the section on nutrition is titled “Nutritional benefits and concerns”. I think we can copy that and replace “precautions” by “concerns”. David Olivier (talk) 01:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fine to me. I've made a change based on your suggestion, adding "Nutritional" to be more specific. Feel free to revert, of course, if there's any objection. -kotra (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good job! Much better than precautions or dangers. Bob98133 (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I had one concern in the Health benefits section. However none of them apply specifically to veganism. They are applicable to the parent category of vegetarianism and none of the articles referenced in this section specifically talk about veganism either. This may seem as a moot point but veganism is actually a fairly restrictive version of vegetarianism and since this distinction is never made nor a disclaimer presented, the benefits appear as applying directly to veganism. Aashay147 (talk) 11:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Omega-3 Fatty Acids
The amount of plant material that would require to convert ALA to EPA to DHA used by the brain would amount to kilograms and likely has negligible effects. This is a severe deficiency in diets of vegans that seems to be understated in this article. http://dhaomega3.org/index.php?category=overview&title=Conversion-of-ALA-to-DHA Schnarr  04:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have the minimum daily requirement for Omega 3s? I do not believe that one has been established, so declaring a deficiency for whatever reason would be a bit premature. Bob98133 (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly premature since EFA deficiency is common in malnourished individuals, or those who choose not to eat foods containing bioavailable EFA's. See the Linus Pauling Institute page on the topic.--ThujaSol ∆  21:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, so a deficiency is possible, so what is the MDR? If there is no established MDR, I question how you can say there is a severe deficiency or even a deficiency except when symptoms appear. Are you saying that vegans exhibit signs of Omega 3 deficiency?Bob98133 (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not implying I do, in fact most people are deficient in Omega-3 fatty acids. However, this article states you would be able to get omega-3 easily in the diet. When in fact, you require a broad range of non-animal food sources and supplementation. This reference is specific to women during pregnancy  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnarr (talk • contribs) 05:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. The article you cite is authored by Jean-Marie Bourre, well known and well discredited in France for being the lobbyist and propagandist for a great number of agrobusiness groups. See here for the ironical attribution of the “Grand prize for propaganda 2006” by Thierry Souccar, an independent nutritionist. ''“Jean-Marie Bourre, comme je l’ai écrit avec Isabelle Robard dans « Santé, Mensonges et Propagande » est surtout président du Centre d’information sur les charcuteries payé par les industriels de la saucisse, membre du Comité scientifique du pain créé par les producteurs de farine, président du Comité scientifique de l’huître, président du Comité scientifique du Comité national pour la promotion de l’œuf mis en place par les producteurs d’œufs. Il fait aussi la promotion du pruneau pour le compte de la Collective du pruneau d’Agen.”'' Outside of France, anyone with such a heap of conflicts of interest would be largely discredited, or at least obliged to cite them in eir articles. Please note too that the abstract of the article you cite is vague and inconclusive, as is the concluding paragraph; all they do is attempt to suggest. They don't even get the facts right, in that they omit linseed oil as a source of ALA — while it contains some 50% ALA and is easy to find. David Olivier (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your investigation. I now see that supplimentation is included and that should be sufficient. Schnarr  03:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Animal rights not necessarily the same as veganism
I think the opening paragraph confuses proponents of animal rights and vegans, which are not necessarily the same thing. Veganism is dietary. I don't think animal testing of cosmetic products is necessarily restricted for vegans, unless those vegans are specifically interested in animal rights. Some vegans are concerned with their own health and not animal abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.177.214 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get this impression from the opening paragraph. Please quote more specifically, or propose an alternative. Xavier Shay (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Veganism is not only a diet, it is a lifestyle. See the Vegan Society definition of "vegan" if you are confused: "A vegan is someone who tries to live without exploiting animals, for the benefit of animals, people and the planet. Vegans eat a plant-based diet, with nothing coming from animals - no meat, milk, eggs or honey, for example. A vegan lifestyle also avoids leather, wool, silk and other animal for clothing or any other purpose." (Vegan Society - What is a vegan?) Someone who is only concerned about the dietary aspects is generally considered a "strict vegetarian." 24.131.148.6 (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly it does. Yesterday I searched for the word "vegetable" - 7 hits, "meat" - 41 hits. How signifigant is the religion entry? 1 sentence. How important is the food itself? 4 sentences and bottom of the whole page. But hey, you can't beat good advertising space can you? ~ R.T.G 07:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion proposal
See Articles for deletion/Fit for Life. Badagnani (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Arguments
In this article there's no section yet, that mentions all arguments, that can bring a person to stay or to become veganist. Before eventually adding such a section, here and now already the suggestion is made, that one of those arguments might be this one: To some (or maybe many) it's clear, that consumption of animal foodproducts very strongly raises ones libido, as well as (to a certain extent) one's sexappeal. Now, given the fact, that in these days even babies and other very young children are feeded with among other things animal foodproducts (for instance added to prepared babyfood), the presumption exists, that this can be a serious cause of these children becoming victim of pedophile activities. So preventing this could be seen as an (additional) argument to raise children the veganist way. A question in this context however is, in how far there are sources about this subject available. Maybe insiders know any. VKing (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not read any serious studies relating to this. Any such assertions are probably either testimonial or unfounded. KellenT 14:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Current studies seem to show that eating animal fat leads to arteriosclerosis which may be an early indicator for impotence. Consumption of animal products and increased libido is a myth, which might be clear to some, but is nonetheless wrong. The connection to pedophilia is totally undocumented. There are many good, valid, scientifically documented reasons for someone to choose to be vegan without this one, so I'd say to leave it out. Bob98133 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PETA's (in)famous rejected super bowl ad to the contrary, I haven't seen any formal studies on the subject, and the only informal study I saw said there's basically no difference. -kotra (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There's this from Slate: which brings up both sides but doesn't draw any conclusion. Bob98133 (talk) 21:39, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Remembering schooltalk saying, that eating eggs raises potence strongly, this was found on Google:
 * It may be not the result of a scientific study, but it indicates, that the 'myth' is still alive, and it's rather unlikely, that a myth stays alive for decennia, when there's nothing in it.
 * The fact, that there are no scientific studies known about this subject, might be indicating, that certain forces prefer, that the results, such studies might lead to, will not be found and/or become publicly known.
 * Eggs content the foetus of a bird; birds (for those who might not know yet), are animals. VKing (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a talk page for improving the article. To improve the article, we need reliable sources. If you find a reliable source, bring it here or write something in the article. This isn't a forum for speculation. KellenT 21:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here you are, sir: . It's true, that it's a warning, but the fact, that non veganists so frequently suffer from deseases like heartattacks, cancer and diabetes might be a much more serious warning. And more than that, a reduced libido means a reduced urge to pedosexual activities with those, who tend to them.
 * The question in how far not eating animal food also results in a reduction of sex appeal with children however, may be not quite answered in this way yet. VKing (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Your assertions aren't supported by the source. There is no documented connection between veganism or meat eating and pedophilia. You can make any assertions you like, but doing it here just wastes everyone's time if you don't have a reliable source. You might consider reading the WP:SYN section of the OR policy. KellenT 19:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Guys, I think you're being trolled. Skinwalker (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * well, now it's &lt;/troll&gt; KellenT 19:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oke, when it has to be explained further, it has to. Nevertheless in itself it's quite simple: as is affirmed by the reliable source as mentioned, eating meat decreases sexual drive. This is no different for the one of pedophiles. So the less meat is eaten by pedophiles, the smaller the chance and/or the frequency becomes, that, resp. in which children will be abused by one of them. Veganists don't eat any meat at all. So when a pedophile turns to veganism, this raises the chance, that (s)he will sin considerably less frequent, or not any more. (This could be explained further, but maybe that won't be necessary). VKing (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, VKing, no need to explain further. Meat eating leads to sin - got it. Even though the source you cite only refers to older men who are vegetarian having reduced sex drive. Doesn't mention younger men, pedophiles or sin. I don't think the article would be improved by including this unsourced OR. Bob98133 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's a little help, to read the article better; it contents this sentence: "''As well as vegetarians and vegans who choose not to eat animal products, the elderly are known to eat less meat because of loss of appetite in later years and difficulty with chewing." So it evidently is also about younger persons, who don't eat any meat, namely all vegetarians (and all veganists and all fruitarians). VKing (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Apparently your unreliable source talks about elderly vegetarians and vegans. Based on that. you cannot extropolate that it also includes anyone else - young people, women, etc. If you have something to add to the article, please find a reliable source. Bob98133 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sigh; so this has to be explained as well? There we go: "As well as vegetarians and vegans, the elderly..... " That's what's in the article, (which is written by a scientist and published by a very well known national broadcasting organisation, which might be sufficient, to tegard the article as being reliable). So it doesn't say: "As well as elderly vegetarians and vegans". No, "as well as vegetarians and vegans". So as far as concerns vegetarians and vegans, there is no limitation; they all don't eat meat; the old, the young, the men and the women. As well as them, in many cases elderly persons also eat hardly or no meat any more (among other things, because they hardly can chew it). Hopefully it's clear now, cause it's very unlikely, that this could be explained any further.

By the way, now that it is scientifically affirmed, that eating meat raises libido, to this article not only can be added the fact, that vegansm reduces the drive behind pedophile activities, but equally the one behind other perversities, like homosexuality and incest.

It's true, the source doesn't mention this verbally, but she affirms the fact, out of which this conclusion logically can be drawn. (Not too complicated?). VKing (talk) 04:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * that's the definition of original research. Not acceptible. Drop it. Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Against my better judgment, I'm going to try to put this to rest and explain why your claim is not supported by the source:
 * The study is not conclusive: every time a finding is made, they use the word "could", not "does".
 * The studied group was only men aged 40-70. The extrapolation to vegetarians and vegans as a whole is not supported except by one dietician's opinion, which she later qualifies by saying vegetarians and vegans can get their protein from other sources.
 * The same BBC article also quotes a Vegan Society spokeswoman as saying vegans don't usually have a low protein problem.
 * For these reasons, the premise that "vegetarians have lower sex drives" is never explicitly made in the BBC article. It is merely a warning based on a study that suggests older men who don't consume enough protein could have decreased sex drives.
 * Incest and homosexuality are not mentioned in the BBC article. You are only looking at one contributing factor to pedophilia/incest/homosexuality/heterosexuality/foot fetishism/sexual attraction to large pieces of concrete rubble; the level of one's sex drive. There are, of course, many other factors in play, several of which we probably don't yet know. That is why your leap from meat-eating to pedophilia (or incest/homosexuality/etc) is not strictly logical, and a textbook example of original research, as Bob98133 mentioned more than once. Therefore, as original research, we cannot include it. Instead, we'll have to wait until a study actually says what you claim.
 * I hope this clears things up. -kotra (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Then surely in the article as an argument can be mentioned, that according to scientists not eating meat can reduce ones libido. But this argument is more in it's right place in the article about vegetarianism, as veganism contents a bit more than just not eating animal food. Now as for other arguments, or better "reasons", to become or to stay veganist:
 * The first one undoubtedly is, that a person doesn't want anything to be done to animals directly or indirectly, that deminishes their (natural) level of well being.


 * A second one is in the fact, that a person can feel, that it is not natural for a human to kill, eat or use animals. After all, in a perfectly natural situation he cannot catch, and/or kill, and/or use one, with just his natural means. (For instance he cannot catch a fish with his hands, so he doesn't want to catch it with a net either).


 * A third reason, that can bring somebody to veganism is a religious one. Some religions teach their members, to treat animals in a friendly way. The Koran for instance says, that he, who is good to animals, is good to himself. Buddhism teaches to treat all living beings, as if they were one's children.

So far for now; maybe soon more reasons will be added, eventually by somebody else. VKing (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * VKing - you continue to confuse facts and your opinion or original research. You say "undoubtedly" as if you've surveyed every vegan in the world to arrive at your conclusion. Unless you have references to support your "facts" they are simply your opinion, which you are welcome to, but it is not sufficient to justify changes to the article which must be supported with references. I have met people that claim to be vegan because they hate animals and don't want anything to do with them - the thought of putting a piece of one in their mouths or wearing a piece of one is disgusting - but that's not on your list of "facts." There may have been surveys done by neutral organizations about why people might be vegan and those could be cited, but your list above appears to be off the top of your head. If I recall, health reasons are one of the most common reasons for being vegan. Instead of repeating your opinions, can you please cite references to support your claims? You would find far less opposition to well-referenced material than to unsubstantiated opinions. Bob98133 (talk) 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wp is a coöperational project. The 'facts' are not added to the article yet, but just mentioned on this discussion page. This has been done mainly, because in this way other contributors have the opportuninty to judge what is posed and eventually contribute in preparing it for addition to the article, among other things by finding and mentioning references. For undoubtedly there are other users, who have more time available to do this, than the one who spent the time he had available now, in taking the initiative for such a new section and mention some main 'facts', that, after having been provided with references, could be part of it. VKing (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe the problem is just definitions. Fact means something that is proven true (or at least reliably referenced). It's not the job of other editors to provide references for things that you believe to be facts. That's your job. If you don't have time or don't care to do that, no problem. There does not seem to be much consensus that the arguments you have presented are facts. Since it is your intiative, it behooves you to provide references. It does not appear that other editors are jumping up to support your "facts" with references, so you either have to provide them yourself or drop it. Generally, if I'm adding new information to an article, I will do so with a reference so that other editors can check to make sure the new info is correct. That process seems to work better than starting with what you believe to be facts, then asking others to find references for them. Anyhow, good luck editing, I've already spent my available time on this discussion.Bob98133 (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonder what references, eh, Wp-rules can confirm, what has been posed in the former edit, as if it where facts. VKing (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah paedophilia is probably waay relevant. PETA would probably give you the video and that would be fun on the article then too wouldn't it? ~ R.T.G —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC).

Some recent changes
A section called "veganarchism" was recently added. As far as I can tell, this is not significant enough to have its own section, and probably belongs only as a link in the "see also" section. Also, the section on eating disorders was deleted, re-added, and then modified, so in its current form it presents only information that is detrimental to veganism. What should this section contain, if it should exist at all? I am not making any proposals on either of these topics, I'm just wondering what other editors think. --n-k, 17:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I checked the history but I haven't seen any 'recent' changes to the eating disorders section. I don't read anything in the section to be "detrimental to veganism" either. Can you clarify? As for veganarchism, I'm a bit ambivalent. KellenT 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An eating disorder is usually detrimental. If you tried to portray as something else you would be misleading but maybe you have some sort of exception... unlikely. ~ R.T.G 07:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Supplements
What an active talk page! So, this line in the opening paragraph: "Vegans are therefore encouraged to plan their diet and take dietary supplements.[8]", seems to be much too strong for the refence given. In the article referenced, the strongest *conclusion* (I did read the whole article) regarding vegetarian (including vegan) diets and supplements is "In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients." I guess I don't see how 'In some cases', 'can be helpful' means all vegans should be encouraged to supplement their diets. (Especially as many of the other dietary articles referenced conclude that a well-planned vegan diet is healthy w/o supplementation.) Thoughts? 64.122.192.37 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. n-k, 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. In particular, with B12, all vegans should be taking supplements (in the form of pills or fortified foods), all the time. As for planning the diet, this wording seems to have arisen from the american dietetic association statement on vegetarian diets in which they qualify their acceptance of vegetarian diets with the phrase "well planned." I suspect their reasoning is that "vegetarian diets" are quite varied and there's a lot of vegetarian-but-bullshit diets they wouldn't advocate. e.g. they'd probably not be that positive about strict raw veganism. KellenT 11:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but since there is only one supplement that vegans are strongly advised to take, perhaps the sentence, in which "supplements" is plural, is worded too strongly. n-k, 12:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Also vitamin D, depending upon where you live. Though both of these could be listed explicitly, I think reverting to the older wording, which was "take dietary supplements as appropriate", might be more ... appropriate. KellenT 12:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am going to revert it to the older wording. n-k, 16:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I feel this wording is more pertinent. Thanks! 64.122.192.37 (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

vitamin b12
i read on the internet that Dr. james halsted was working with persian iranian vegans who did not get b12 deficiency and discovered they were using humanure to grow there food.Username 1 (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's some info about this - it's called Indirect coprophagy - . Not sure if it's worth a mention, though. One would think that the human manure used would have to come from non-vegans, too. Bob98133 (talk) 21:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not worth a mention; this is a very edge case source of B12, and has not been shown to provide adequately for vegan nutritional needs. KellenT 21:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree this is a bit bizarre, but if there are good refs for it (not the one I cited above), I don't think that a mention would be out of place. As you say, Kellen, it would require good research to prove that this method does provide adequate B12, but if that proof exists, a mention would be OK with me. If Username is interested in documenting this, maybe he/she can post the refs to talk and we can discuss this again. Bob98133 (talk) 12:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i'm looking for more than a mention. note that the b12 is not left over from the food remains of non-vegans, but from the bacteria in the large intestines in vegans before it is excreted. Vitamin B12 cannot be made by plants or animals as only bacteria have the enzymes required for its synthesis. Also on the internet i found a study in which scientist cured vitamin b12 def. in vegans by giving them concentrated doses of b12 from there own fecal matter, which proves there is enough b12 in the feces but that perhaps only barely enough b12 survives the second time through. I found this as well:

"Studies have shown that those eating an omnivorous diet require more vitamin B-12 than vegans. This is because the typical diet leads to digestive atrophy. Because vitamin B-12 is peptide bound in animal products and must be enzymatically cleaved from the peptide bonds to be absorbed, a weakening of all gastric acid and gastric enzyme secretions (due to a cooked food diet) causes an inability to efficiently extract vitamin B-12 from external food." Username 1 (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Username One - please see WP:CITE. "found on the internet" doesn't help other editors review the source. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Taken from Talk:fruitarianism

I have also seen studies showing that eating food contaminated with shit may contain B12. However, I have not seen a reliable source indicating that fruitarians specifically may meet their B12 requirements in this way. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Userone - Your citation above fails to meet Verifiability. Please DO NOT insert comments above this. Bob98133 (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is quite relevant,.. http://rawfooddietsecrets.com/blog/12/no-such-thing-as-a-b12-deficiency/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.99.178 (talk) 23:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's bullshit. KellenT 22:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a little harsh, Kellen! It is an unsubstantiated theory and has no place in the article, but this B12 thing seems pretty important to vegans so research and theories continue. Bob98133 (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, the tone of that article really irked me. It's written by "Dr Vivian V. Vetrano", obviously a pseudonym, obviously not a doctor. It's completely pseudo/non-scientific FUD mongering with respect to "traditional western science." The thrust of the article is to convince raw foodists and vegans not to take B12 supplements by frightening them off with scary words like "cyanide". The 3rd to last paragraph contains this bullshit: "Looking at it hygienically, no Vitamin B12 therapy can cause a recovery from any so-called deficiency disease. It may only hide the symptoms and cannot give an individual health." WHAT? And then the blog post has this: "It's disturbing to think that I'm putting cyanide into my body by taking a B vitamin." B12 research is obviously important to vegans, but this isn't research or even based on actual research, it's just fringe FUD. KellenT 14:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, that sort of pseudoscience has no place in the article. TheLastNinja (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kellen - not-so-obvious that this is a pseudonym. Google search indicates that she appears to be a chiropractor and lists credentials that include a PhD, so she's entitled to call herself doctor. I agree with you, as above, that her take is flaky science, not peer reviewed, and shouldn't be in the article; but history is full of people who were discredited during their lifetimes, yet later found to be correct, while some of those believed to be correct have been proven wrong. My point was not to support including her garbage, but just to consider it unsubstantiated, rather than bullshit which seems dismissive without addressing the reasons (which you have since done in this discussion). Nuff said, I think. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree you shouldn't have called it bullshit. There is a lot of B12 in bullshit, though presumably not the sparkling cyanide kind. I agree that those references to cyanide (why not Zyklon B, we should suggest that to Dr. Vetrano) are FUD, and that the reference should not be included as a reliable source. That said, the continued reluctance of a certain number of vegans to accept that B12 is an issue that should be addressed is, in itself, an interesting topic for the article. Someone (er... not me...) should add something about it. David Olivier (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected! KellenT 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Low carbon diet?
Hello,

I want to add a link to Low carbon diet, but I'm not sure if it should go in the "Similar diets" section or "See also" section... I tried the "See also" section once, but it got edited to 'Low carb diet' which is an entirely different page! (and a very non-vegan diet!) and then removed. Ideas? Jaybird vt (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to be all PETA and the like talk about so it is back in the see also section now. ~ R.T.G 07:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

"people who call themselves vegans" and honey
I reverted this change (marked "minor", without an edit summary), but had my revert reverted. I've reverted similar changes many times previously. It is not our place to determine who or what "fits" the definition of veganism, but to represent it as it exists. As the world exists, there are many people who eat honey and who are called vegans by e.g. the source cited in that section, vegan.org. I recognize that there is an ideological dispute. The source recognizes that there is an ideological dispute. The article describes the dispute, based upon the source. Having some wording in this article like "people who call themselves vegans" is just POV pushing and, as i said in my edit summary, this is not the place for it. KellenT 23:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted this again to the original (same as action taken by Kellen). While I don't agree that this is a petty point to vegans or those involved in defining what a vegan is or should be, but saying "some who consider themselves vegans" does not further understanding of veganism. It simply puts down people who believe that veganism does not exclude these items. Kellen's argument above is valid. If this point is to be addressed in this article, it would be more fitting for it to be mentioned in the definition as being contentious among vegans, with references, of course. Bob98133 (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Stating that people who use animal products such as honey are vegan could be considered incorrect, stating that people who use animal products such as honey consider themselves vegan cannot be considered incorrect, nor is it a statement stating that people who do are not vegans. The first option here is the one that is making a statement about the definition of vegan. Muleattack (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "people who call themselves vegans" has a snide tone to it. Try reading it with a sarcastic voice. It implies that the authors of this article do not consider these people vegan. We should take no stance on this. Instead, consider the source (remember, it's from "Vegan Action"):
 * Many vegans, however, are not opposed to using insect products,
 * See? Not only do these people call themselves vegan, but Vegan Action, a vegan advocacy organization calls them vegan. That this "could be considered incorrect" is the whole point of that sentence. It points out that there is a strict definition of what constitutes an animal product but there are vegans who use slightly varying definitions. KellenT 05:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that recent edits by Gabbe balance this controversy about honey. 2nd ref wasn't really needed, but doesn't hurt. I'm OK with this section now, if other editors concur. Bob98133 (talk) 14:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved the "however, ... " into the main sentence so it doesnt seem like we're all fighting with each other in the main article text. The 2nd ref is a bit weird since it's citing almost exactly the same material (by the same author) just in another book. I've added quotes from both so you can see what I'm talking about. I half feel like removing the 2nd ref because it appears to give "extra authority" to this clause when it's actually just the same person repeating themselves. KellenT 11:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Vegans use no bee products" quoted from http://www.vegansociety.com/pdf/Honey.pdf That seems to me to state that people who eat honey are not vegan and conflicts with vegan actions statement. Muleattack (talk) 21:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, that's because there's a conflict between "the official vegan society position" and "reality". In reality, there's a very large number of people who (a) call themselves "vegan", (b) are called "vegan" by others, including vegan advocacy organizations, such as vegan action (c) also eat honey. That's why the paragraph about honey is the way it is. KellenT 22:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The way it is says "some vegans consider their use and the use of other insect products to be acceptable" that states that people that consume honey ARE vegan, the link I just posted shows that it's disputed by vegan organisations and that should be made clearer. Muleattack (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, vegan action is in the minority. Look at the dictionary definitions - http://www.answers.com/veganism http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=vegan&x=0&y=0 http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vegan to have a line that states that people who eat honey are vegan is going against the majority of references. Muleattack (talk) 01:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that you don't believe people who eat honey are vegan, and that's your right, but it doesn't match up with the use of the term in reality, and the conflict is adequately explained by the current article version. There's already two long qualifying clauses (honey is animal product, vegan soc. says no honey). Those are enough. KellenT 01:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No sorry, what you say is reality doesn't count, citable references do and vegan action seems to stand pretty much alone on this opinion compared to the generally accepted definition. That sentence is incorrect. Muleattack (talk) 01:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Isn't there some problem of definition? Aren't there some people who consider veganism to be inclusive of honey? If not, then why are we having this discussion? An article in Slate: "any vegan who eats honey". An article by Michael Greger arguing against a honey "ban." Anyway, I think both of our positions are crystal clear. Let's hear what other editors have to say. KellenT 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * That's my point, there is an argument over the definition and that particular sentence takes one side of the argument rather than trying to be neutral. I'm not trying to change the article to say that if you eat honey you aren't vegan but trying to correct that particular sentence which appears to categorically state that people that do, are. I'd like to hear other editors views too. Muleattack (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How about replacing "some vegans consider their use and the use of other insect products to be acceptable." with "some people consider their use and the use of other insect products to be acceptable in a vegan diet." ? Muleattack (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My first reaction is "no, that's not acceptable", but I'll think about it for a day. KellenT 01:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've thought about this more. The wording you suggest is not acceptable to me because it politicizes the article text. It takes the view that these people who eat honey have no right to be called "vegan" so it dances around that by saying "some people". But the fact of the matter is that these people are called vegans (by themselves, by e.g. Vegan Action, by most nonvegans), even if there's other vegans who are angry that this happens. I don't think you dispute that these people are called vegans (you can verify this by following the vegan action links), but what you dispute is that other people calling them vegans is accurate/true. Interestingly, the 2009 VRG poll separated out honey eaters and non-honey eaters (the 2006 poll did not do this). It turns out that of the 1.3% of the population which are "vegans" (we have to assume here, because the VRG poll doesn't ask people to self-identify; I personally suspect most of these people would identify as vegan) 0.5% eat honey--that's 40% of all "vegans". KellenT 15:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * What is honey made of pollen or bees eggs? ~ R.T.G 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * NON SEQUITUR! Where's the rest of the rambling pointlessly provocative text? Oh, in the edit summary. Please be constructive or go away. KellenT 17:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The argument you put forward reminds me a lot of pescetarians who refer to themselves as vegetarian, and I'm sure most do, they aren't referred to as vegetarian on wikipedia though. Muleattack (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (e/c) Except that pescatarians are clearly misusing vegetarian as a shorthand for "i don't eat red meat" whereas vegans who eat honey are in a grey middleground for a few separate reasons which have to do with the ethical underpinnings of veganism. For example, vegans who eat honey might argue that they are vegan in order to avoid harm to sentient creatures but that bees are not sentient. Or they might argue that eating honey creates equal harm to bees as eating farmed vegetables, so the issue is moot. So in these cases, the person would be both consistent philosophically and eat honey. KellenT 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Got it, if we just lose the word vegan from the sentence it doesn't make an inference either way. "Although honey and silk are by definition animal products, and although abstaining from honey is a requirement for membership in the American and British Vegan Societies,[30][31] some consider their use and the use of other insect products to be acceptable.[32]" I can't see that anyone would have a problem with that? Muleattack (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But this is just asking for a little [who?] tag. KellenT 17:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A pescetarian could equally argue that they think fish feel no pain and that by eating wild fish they are saving animals from being factory farmed and that they are therefore vegetarian. It doesn't change the dictionary definition though. Muleattack (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Honey is a bees placenta. I do not know what bearing that has on it being a vegetable but I do know that syrup grows on trees. Have ye sort of overlooked that blunt and obvious truth? And all the rambling is already here thanks. ~ R.T.G 17:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ye should be debating if veganism means membership to the society or veg only diet ~ R.T.G 17:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the [who?] tag, that would be people, vegans are people so that would be correct (it also refers to non vegans). You seem to think that infers that vegans that eat honey aren't vegan though and want it to make a biased statement that they definitely are. Muleattack (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Bee larvae juice. If you don't want to be a vegan you don't have to. I am being rather challenging here aren't I? Damm right I am. I have worn leather shoes out of nessecity. I was nearly carnivorous at one time. I don't cod myself about it. What does the dictionary say? vegan It's OK to say that vegans have eaten honey but that is what you are going to get away with. How does a Vegan society pop-poll change that? ~ R.T.G 18:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, what Kellin said, "identify as vegan". Nothing is a better match. Apologies for being ignorant. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 18:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. Do you have a question or suggestion for improving the article? The honey issue has been discussed over and over again and Kellen came up with a reasonable way of presenting it that was acceptable to other editors. Bob98133 (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * My point is, as your edit summary asks, that you are all waffling about what honey is wether meat-eaters are paedophiles (see this talk page) and the worthlessness of culture whilst suppressing information about cuisine and religion without real discussion. I wonder how apologetic my apology really was, Bob? If you were a bit more blunt about it you wouldn't have to debate so much about honey is, would you? So you have remembered what honey is now, right? You can have that point, Bob. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But thanks for asking. If I hadn't realised how difficult it was I might never have explained it. Oh me me me. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In rewriting this section, I removed the two Stepaniak citations as they were excessive (there's a direct Vegan Society citation now, and these two citations were redundant from the beginning). They are as follows: KellenT 17:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Veganism as lifestyle declaration
I miss some aspects of this aspect especially among young vegans and added some points based on german studies and press reports. --Polentario (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the additions a little confusing. The whole segment about prenz/wedding makes no sense at all to me, and although I think the connection between punk and veganism is relevant, the points about straight-edge elitism aren't very relevant to this article. The tone of the passage also seems much more like editorializing than an encyclopedia article. KellenT 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Elitism - Breyvogels major point is that veganism is not about healthy nutrition at all - its a means to distinguish oneself from others and integrate into a dedicated and interesting peer group. "True and pure Veganism" is a sort of unfulfillable endeavour, but as a sort of ambitious goal makes it interesting for adolescents which try to find an identity
 * Losses in translation, editorial style - OK, I will try! I personally think that 80% of the nutritional facts in this article could be erased without loss, the German article has been +- downsized in that resepct to the position papers of ADA and the swiss and german equivalents, but I wouldnt go as WP:BOLD on a well researched lemma like this
 * Either in Sweden and in germany, straight edge has been described as a focal group, not the only reason.
 * Prenz towards wedding is the German aquivalent of Notting Hill versus East End.
 * Munich versus Berlin an ever ongoing competition, the NYT article attributed Munich the lead as cultural hot spot and mentioned the posh and trendy vegan resto Zerwirk as one of the reasons. Best regards --Polentario (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts to improve the article, but I have multiple criticisms of these additions.

I think it's rather problematic to be including German criticisms in the english-language article since (a) none of us have access to the sources since they're not available outside germany (and the ones included aren't online sources) (b) most of use don't speak german even if we had access to the sources (c) the criticisms are likely tailored to the specific situation of veganism in germany (d) no quotes are provided for the citations, so we can't read what the person using the citation thought supported their article statement. Now the specific criticisms.

This part:
 * Vegan and vegetarian lifestyles and some of their alleged asian roots...

is totally pointless. That segment essentially says "vegans base their diet on asian diets, but asians are eating more meat". So what?


 * ... veganism a somewhat problematic closeness to dietary theories propagated within the German political right as within the Völkisch movement.

I don't contest that someone could suggest that german vegans could use this as inspiration, but this movement is irrelevant outside germany, and the criticism is rather obtuse: "veganism has similarities to the diets promoted by these sketchy guys".


 * Veganism provides a semireligious component foremost based on the term of compassion for all life forms [151] and an utopian[152] perspective ...

The 151 note is not actually a citation, and as with the other sources 152 has no quote and isn't available online. This section as a statement is also not acceptable. We can identify authors who say such things, but not just say them straight out since this is a POV. My personal POV is that this is bullshit, however there are certainly vegans for whom this is relevant. A more acceptable phrasing would be something like "author X contends that veganism fills a semireligous place in vegans lives, that since in the athor's view veganism is based upon compassion for all life forms its view is utopian."


 * As well vegan lifestyle and especially posh and trendy vegan restaurants in city centers are being acknowledged as a sign of cultural hotspots ...

This is not sufficiently cited. The source is a NYTimes travel article about Munich which talks about a vegan restaurant. That source doesn't "acknowledge" anything, and doesn't make any statement about vegan restaurants in general.


 * The role of veganism as lifestyle declaration has been mentioned as well in several reports about city quartiers ...

All this section says is that Prez-berg has more vegetarian restaurants/more vegetarians. Veganism isn't mentioned in the source so far as I can tell. This section seems to be (in a round-about way) trying to indict veganism/vegetarianism as a luxury of the rich, but it doesn't come right out and say it. This section seems particularly pointless to me since it's about a regional difference only within berlin. I'm not saying it isn't true, just that it's not very relevant in an english language article about a much broader subject.

As I said before, I do think mentioning the punk-veganism connection is relevant, but I think that that Breyvogels' viewpoint is given too much space, and that there are probably other sources we could cite. I would personally also appreciate quotes from Breyvogel so that non-germans could actually check some of the source material rather than only having an editor's characterizations of her position to go by.

Finally, the section on the position of the German and Swiss dietary associations is interesting, but I suspect the quote doesn't give a wholly accurate picture of their position. For example, in this PDF there's a segment (babelfish translated) which reads:
 * The experience shows that a veganische nourishing way with a sufficient supply of all nutrients (exception vitamin B12, which should be supplied with enriched food or Supplementen) is possible. ... One can regard this nourishing form however quite as one „niche nourishing way “, which can lead with correct application to a good health result.

I was not able to find the section quoted in the article in the Swiss position papers, but of course, I don't speak/read german. KellenT 08:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The quotes translated are central parts od positioning papers of official bodies, to cross the language barrier, I will give more exact quotations including the german text in footnotes . Basically its "an expert vegan might stay healthy, but lay people especially in situations loke pregnancy risk too much".


 * Breyvogel is available online at books. If british vegans are mainstream, so be it, but the german (and swedish) studies see veganism especially as a part of pop culture among young people
 * I can elaborate on the cited closeness to some Völkish and third Reich dietary streamings, its about Rohkost and Vollkorn (raw food and wholegrain), and a variety of problematic theorists, as Schnitzler, Kollath and Bruker, btw the strong animal rights approach and its intense propagandidistic use in the third reich is depicted in Animal welfare in Nazi Germany. To cut it short "living in harmony with nature" and diverse dietary dreams to use certain forms of original natural food classical deeply enrooted topic german topic(http://www.hippy.com/article-243.html gives a good overview in english, the quality sources in German are abundant), the nazi movement however saw e.g. jews as unnatural life forms. --Polentario (talk) 11:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't really addressed any of my concerns listed above. With respect to the völkisch/nazi support for basic animal welfare and some kind of limited vegetarianism: so what? The roads we drive on are very similar to those constructed by nazis, shall we stop driving? In any case, just saying in the article that there is a "somewhat problematic closeness" is insanely unencyclopedic. The author of the source Veganism needs to be identified and what they actually wrote should be quoted. I'm not sure what other editors think of your additions, but I will probably be removing large sections of them unless the above concerns are addressed. KellenT 12:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The needed quotations are now to be found en detail, and can be checked properly. I asssume that official papers of large nutritional expert bodies are of interest jhere, and the jury has been quite clear. I mean one could erase large section about alleged nutritional details and stay with the basic position papers. I have clearly adressed the points about regional situations, if in GB veggiedom ios mainstream OK, in germany and e.g. Sweden its largely young people, partially influenced by straight edge and i have provided suitable sourcing. BR --Polentario (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this provides a perfect example of why quotes are needed. I think the referencing of the Swedish study is actually really great, BUT the study never says that vegetarianism is mostly within youth culture or straight edge. What it does say is that the authors of the study chose certain cities in which to conduct their study because they assumed that cities with a history of involvement in certain youth movements (straight edge) would have a higher prevalence of vegetarianism and therefore would be a good place to study dietary habits of young vegetarians. The statement that you added to the article is the wrong way around, and this is why it is very important to both editors and readers that the cited material is quoted, especially when the source isn't available online for verification. In this case, I was able to read the source and see that what you wrote is actually wrong, and we will be able to fix the article to be more accurate. KellenT 10:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at Breyvogel, p.89, there is reference to Larsson 2001 (which I cannot find fulltext for, but which appears to be largely the same as the linked thesis dissertation) and Larsson 2003. Larson 2001 (dissertation) is what I refer to above (since this is what was linked in the reference). In Larson 2003, there is again a mention of straight edge, but this is not the subject of the study. The authors say that straightedge became popular in sweden in the 1990s, and that vegetarianism is popular with straightedge people, but this is not the subject of the study. The study itself does only one thing, which is to characterize adolescent adoption of veganism as a "status passage" (a reference to a 1971 theory by Glaser and Strauss). It is possible that Larsson 2001 in Public Health actually investigates straightedge as a source of veganism (though the abstract does not mention it), but these other two articles by Larsson do not. KellenT 14:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed this for the reason listed above (source does not support statement):
 * As well vegan lifestyle and especially posh and trendy vegan restaurants in city centers are being acknowledged as a sign of cultural hotspots

This as well, because it's pointless:
 * Vegan and vegetarian lifestyles and some of their alleged asian roots are discussed intensively in Germany as in other western countries. However, the developing and especially asian threshold nations significantly increase the intake of meat and animal derived products

And this, for the same reason:
 * The role of veganism as lifestyle declaration has been mentioned as well in several reports about city quartiers with dedicated or alleged lifestyles. Poor quartiers as the Wedding (Berlin) are compared with bohemian quartiers as the Prenzlauer Berg with a higher amount of vegan and vegetarian culture.

I removed this:
 * A stronger amount of vegans is to be found at adolescents and young people. Here, Vegans are often found but not restricted to adolescent fans of Straight Edge.

because the statement made is not supported by the source. If you go to amazon.co.uk, search for the book "Vegane Lebensstile", do "Search inside this book" and search for "straight edge" you will find one mention of straight edge, which is a quote from a youth talking about his motivations. This is not at all sufficient to make the statement that "larger amounts of vegans" are found in younger people, or in fans of straight edge. I also removed:
 * Along Wilfrid Breyvogels study Veganism predominantly is a lifestyle declaration among adolescents, it includes shared listening of certain bands and concerts, preparing and sharing meals and food and the use and applications of special signs and symbols including tatoos. Veganisms distinguishing selling point is the option to style ones body, to show toughness and to adhere to self imposed strict rules and regulations within a favored peer group.

Because although the statement as it stands is half-true (imo), the POV is improperly attributed to Breyvogels, who is the editor, not the author of the "study" (a compilation of essays), there is no page number cited, and no quote given, so I cant even try to verify the veracity of the statement, especially the "Veganism predominantly is a lifestyle declaration" section. "predominantly" is very strong, and inappropriate in the article text unless directly attributed to another author. KellenT 13:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Youre deeply mistaken with your statement about Breyvogel, just read itBreyvogel at books Please undo the changes accordingly. BR --Polentario (talk) 14:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears you've mixed up my justifications.
 * A stronger amount of vegans is to be found at adolescents and young people.
 * is sourced to "Angela Grube: Vegane Lebensstile. Diskutiert im Rahmen einer qualitativen/quantitativen Studie". That source does not at all support the statement. I do not contest that Breyvogel has mentions of straightedge. However, I strongly doubt that anything in Beryvogel can adequately support the statement above. If you can provide a page number to check, please do so. Grube also does not support:
 * Here, Vegans are often found but not restricted to adolescent fans of Straight Edge
 * For the reasons listed above. Breyvogel might support this, but I'm sure there are better, english-language citations we could use to show prevalence of vegans inside the strightedge population. Also, although I agree being straightedge is associated with a higher likelihood of veganism, this in no way supports the statements you included in the article about veganism being mostly within youth culture or straightedge or being used primarily as a signifier of "toughness" etc. KellenT 14:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See also V about the preference for english-language sources, and V regarding quotations. KellenT 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you describe Veganism in the UK, OK. Beyound check sources from other countries. Breyvogel et al describe an important part of the vegan scene. I will check for the page numbers., BR --Polentario (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons listed above, I removed:
 * Some German authors attest a somewhat problematic closeness to dietary theories propagated within the German political right

I also removed the following
 * Veganism is described in some german sources as a semireligious movement based on the term of compassion for all life forms and a utopian perspective of a personal and collective identity living in line with nature.

pending a page number, a quotation, or some other more specific attribution. Better would be to replace the german source with something readily available and in english. KellenT 18:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As said, what I lack here is a sociological approach, 2/3 of the article is full of nutritional detail without any importance for a cultural movement, google tells me e.g.

Syracuse University Press, 2006, 192 pp. $US 19.95 hardcover (0-8156-3127-8) BR --Polentario (talk) 01:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture, Robert T. Wood (Autor)
 * Straight Edge: Hardcore Punk, Clean-Living Youth, and Social Change Ross Haenfler
 * Sociology on the menu: an invitation to the study of food and society, Alan Beardsworth, Teresa Keil Routledge, 1997 ISBN 0415114241,
 * btw Breyvogel got a positive review at the Forum: Qualitative Social Research
 * Robert T. Wood. Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture.


 * I've been looking at excerpts from Haenfler, but I haven't gotten anything which adequately characterizes the connection (some pages omitted from Google books), though veganism is mentioned in many places. KellenT 01:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean I thought I could introduce Breyvogel here, since he takes great effort to compare the US and german vegan scenes, with some detailed field studies ect. I suggest you have a look on the mentioned entries, maybe it can be used here or in straight edge. However ceterum censeo: I see veganism more as a cultural issue, less about nutritional chemistry --Polentario (talk) 01:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You were damm right Polentario. Who do these folk think they are that culture is irrelevant? They think they are blocking a load meat-eaters from walking up the high road but all they are doing is pissing off a measely few appreciative vegans and keeping a load of trolls and vandals amused about it too. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Larson 2001 Public Health Nutrition
If anybody can get the fulltext of Larson 2001 and provide a relevant quote it would be appreciated. KellenT 14:08, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just send her an e-mail, think that will work. BR --Polentario (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

sXe/punk
Section for appropriate sources here.

'''Haenfler, Ross. Straight Edge : Clean-Living Youth, Hardcore Punk, and Social Change. New Brunswick, NJ, USA: Rutgers University Press, 2006.'''

This work also contains all of the veganism-related contents of: Ross Haenfler Rethinking Subcultural Resistance: Core Values of the Straight Edge Movement Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2004; 33; 406, which is often cited. The best quotes (I've searched the entire book) are: These are all fine, but make statements better suited to the straight edge article rather than this one.
 * p16: By the mid-1990s, &hellip; thousands of kids adopted a strict vegan lifestyle, refusing to eat all animal products (often including honey); wear any kind of suede, leather, or wool; and support companies that tested products on animals.
 * p36: Many sXers even shun caffeine and medicinal drugs, and a majority are committed vegetarians or vegans.
 * p53: In the mid- to late-1980s, sXe became increasingly concerned with animal rights &hellip; At least three out of four Denver sXers are vegetarian and many adopt completely cruelty-free, or vegan, lifestyles. Veganism had become such a signiﬁcant part of sXe by the late 1990s that many sXers gave it equal importance to living drug and alcohol free. Many sXe vegans self-identify as “vegan straight edge” and some bands identify as “vegan straight edge” rather than simply straight edge. Veganism, while still widely practiced, has declined somewhat after 2000. Among the approximately seventy sXers I associated with regularly, only ﬁfteen ate meat. Several individuals had “Vegan” tattooed on their bodies.

Wood 2006: Straightedge Youth: Complexity and Contradictions of a Subculture

Has some minor mentions of veganism.


 * p7: More recently, straightedgers are known for their highly political commitment to vegetarian or vegan lifestyles, as well as for their opposition to other perceived forms of animal exploitation (Haenfler 2004; Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a, 1999b, 2003).
 * p8: By the late 1980s, vegetarianism and veganism were emerging to assume a near-equal prominence as defining features of straightedge culture and identity (Irwin 1999; Wood 1999a).

I've checked out a few of the sources mentioned in Wood's citations. I was unable to obtain copies of: But in the copyright section of this book, it notes that both of these papers are used, at least in part, for the book itself. Perhaps it's a bit odd for the author to cite himself, I don't know... I obtained two of the sources mentioned on p7, there was no mention of veganism in: And a minor mention of veganism in:
 * Wood 1999a: "'Nailed to the X': A Lyrical History of the Straightedge Youth Subculture." Journal of Youth Studies 2, no. 2:133-51.
 * Wood 2003: "Straightedge Youth: Observations on the Complexity of Subcultural Identity." Journal of Youth Studies 6, no. 1:33-52.
 * Wood 1999b: "The Indigenous, Nonracist Origins of the American Skinhead Subculture." Youth and Society 31, no. 2: 131-51.

'''Irwin 1999: "The Straight Edge Subculture: Examining the Youths' Drug-free Way." Journal of Drug Issues 29, no. 2:365-80'''
 * He was the co-author of a book, In Defense of Reality (Cappo and Das 1993), in which he discussed Straight Edge and defined it as a 'music scene that began in the 1980s, propagating the philosophy of non-violence, vegetarianism, anti-prejudice and anti-drugs.'

All in all, not very strong citations for this article, though I note that the straightedge article could use some help. KellenT 23:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

'''The Philosophy of Punk: More Than Noise. Craig O'Hara. AK Press. Copyright Date: 1999.'''
 * p.136: While it was the European Punks who promoted vegetarianism, many North Americans are now taking it a step further by promoting veganism. &hellip; While vegetarianism is a step in the right direction, many vegan Punks view it as not enough.

'''Dylan Clark. "The Raw and the Rotten: Punk Cuisine" Ethnology, Vol. 43, No. 1 (Winter, 2004), pp. 19-31'''


 * p.24: In punk veganism, the daily politics of consumption and the ethical quandaries of everyday life are intensified. In part, the decade-long struggle to make food and animal products overtly political was carried out by bands such as Vegan Reich and in zines. Zines regularly comment on animal rights, industrial food, and veganism.
 * p.24: In the daily praxis of punk, vegetarianism and veganism are strategies through which many punks combat corporate capitalism, patriarchy, and environmental collapse.
 * p.24: by the 1990s, veganism was a rapidly ascending force within the greater punk landscape in North America. Led by the "straight edge" punk movement, veganism gained credence across the punk spectrum, including those who scorned the drug abstaining politics of straight edge

KellenT 02:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Vegan diet and improvement in prostate cancer
I would like to add research done by Dr. Dean Ornish, specficially a study on men with prostate cancer and addoption of "lifestyle changes". Those lifestyle changes included a vegan diet. Should I create a subsection titled "Cancer" under "Nutritional benefits" or just a paragraph on the research within "Nutritional benefits"? (I'll post the proposed text here before I update the article.)<BR>--Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just make a normal paragraph under 'benefits'. KellenT 09:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

<BR> Here's the text I propose to add: A 2005 secondary prevention study published in the Journal of Urology by Dr. Dean Ornish(footnote), showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression. --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The bold is unnecessary, as is the mention of which journal in which the study was published. If it's appropriate, mention prostate cancer explicitly. Also if there's some way on combining all of this into one sentence with less repetition, that would be good. And put the reference at the end of the sentence. KellenT 10:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the bold as it makes it easier to read technically dense material by visually picking out what's important to focus on -- but it is not a common wiki style. Here's the updated text with the other suggestions incorporated: A 2005 secondary prevention study on prostate cancer published by Dr. Dean Ornish, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels with no patients having to leave the study due to disease progression. In contrast, the control group for this study experienced a 6% increase in PSA levels with 6 patients having to leave the study for conventional treatment due to disease progression.(footnote) --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

More like this: A 2005 secondary prevention study on prostate cancer, showed that a year long "intensive lifestyle change" consisting of a vegan diet, aerobic exercise, stress management and weekly group therapy resulted in a 4% reduction in PSA levels and zero patients leaving the study due to disease progression, compared with a 6% increase in PSA levels and 6 patients leaving the study the control group.(footnote) KellenT 18:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's still too detailed and verbose for a study which isn't focused on veganism. Gabbe (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The fact that a vegan diet showed the possibility of reversing cancer is considered revolutionary, and important if you've been diagnosed with cancer. A vegan diet has been proven to reverse heart disease and diabetes type-2, and I'd like to include as much health research as possible when explaining the benefits of following a vegan diet. --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I support including references to studies of that effect. The study you mentioned, however, is about "intensive lifestyle change" (a much wider concept), and not specifically about veganism per se. Therefore I don't think the Ornish study warrants more than a passing mention. Gabbe (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I stand by my last version of the text. As you may already know, it's difficult to distill 5 pages of research into two sentences - LOL. A link to Dr. Dean Ornish is important since he does alot of research on vegan[vegetarian?] diets and disease.<BR> --Thomas.vandenbroeck (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

PCRM diet recommendations
I removed:
 * The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine recommends what they call the "Four New Food Groups." They suggest that vegans and vegetarians eat at least three servings of vegetables a day, including dark green, leafy vegetables such as broccoli, and dark yellow and orange such as carrots; five servings of whole grains (bread, rice, pasta); three of fruit; and two of legumes (beans, peas, lentils).

Because it didn't fit in the article where it lived and I don't see a particularly good place for it now. Suggestions welcome. KellenT 10:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Looking at the ref, it seems that PCRM recommends this diet/food groups for everyone, not just vegans; and the New Food groups are generally credited as being healthier, but no specifics are cited which aren't cited elsewhere in this article. Bob98133 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done
Wanted to say the citation and reference section of this article is one of the best I have ever seen. Well done --94.193.135.142 (talk) 11:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See WP:STAR <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 07:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Image thumbnails layout


My edit of image thumbnails layout was reverted by User:Kellen` because he think "they don't all need to be on the right." But please look at my screen shot under 1024px-width screen resolution you will learn that the thumbnails sandwich the main article text. I suppose Kellen is using some greater screen resolution so he didn't see the problem, but this looks inappropriate in 1024*786px or smaller resolution. For more information, please check the WP:Layout, MOS:IMAGES & WP:Picture tutorial. Thx. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 02:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see your point. I think remaking that energy consumption graph in a better scale might help. KellenT 12:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

RfC:God Almighty
WP:PSTS "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages."

In relation to this edit, can consensus be reached that this matter is or not a primary concern to the ideology of veganism? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments
Yes, the bible is a primary concern for a very signifigant section of those both vegan and vegan-oposed <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 23:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't a yes/no question. The material added in that edit is excessive and wholly inappropriate for the lead. There is already a "similar diets and lifestyles" section which deals with the groups which follow a vegan diet for religious reasons. It's possible that this section would benefit from certain kinds of expansion, such as the specific justifications for following a vegan diet from each of the religious groups. Just citing the bible is not going to be enough to do this properly; find a citation to something to group has published which specifically recommends veganism. If you are interested in this, I would strongly urge you to find appropriate citations for all the religious groups listed, otherwise the section on christianity will feel rather out of place. KellenT 02:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wups, I misread the diff to be longer than it was. Less excessive than I thought, but still inappropriate for the lead. KellenT 03:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Christianity is an enourmous part, argueably the most important part of culture in the world as a whole today. The religion is based upon a book. The first page of that book promotes veganism directly as part of, argueably, the purpose of life. My opposition to providing that information would not be an indicator of some whimsical suppression or some controversial adverse emotions, it would merely be my discreditation of the Christian Church as an unnotable topic outside designated or pursued religous topics which is why I would not oppose it. Heaping crap out in front of "down to earth" people will not win your chosen topic one strand of support. Thankfully I am insignifigant and irrelevant. Persons of the "Down with Earth" value will surely not get off the non-existant "personal belief" page when presented with deep rooted religious interest. The topic is Veganism and the most successful book of all time promotes veganism on page 1 under the designation - Words of God almighty as he created the purpose of The Heavens, The Earth and All There Is. But I would suggest that the information may be either irrelevant or unnoteworthy (notice that I didn't settle on one because I haven't made my mind up yet)... If first-language-English-speaking-citizens-in-general would cast Christian Faith on the top ten of the "That which is more important than mere existence" list or if 10% would claim that Christianity is a part of their life pursued daily with the belief that their lives depended on it, which would be a rather modest pair of estimates, the topic would be in league of importance with the unnoteable like of Ancient Egyptians and Mayans, would it not? Would a sudden fundamental change in Christianity be reported and debated by a ridiculously absolute percentage of the worlds non-local media? And yet a distiction, so ancient that it sits in the absence of change, might be reported by NONE, not even Wikipedia I do believe that I have encountered two perceivable, unwarranted, unnessecary, and undefined wiki-brick walls in the last three or so weeks but hey there are racists and religious lunatics everywhere since some time now so we should not allow such behaviour to be provided in knowledge. Jesus loves me this I know, because the Bible tells me so but that would not be an NPOV I should imagine. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay? KellenT 01:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Not yet, put the bible thing back in and don't be saying it's irrelevant! It's a valid and relevant fact which is interesting too unless you are anti-religious or anti-vegan. The bible study is just relevant information. I entered it twice to which the first one lasted barely 15 mins before it was not sourced properly and the one with sources only 2 hrs and it was excessive, no wait, irrelevant! I am left ranting away to myself here. You had to accept that it wasn't "excessive" but came across as saying "But we'll just exclude stuff like that anyway." It's only interesting information about a core aspect. You know from this I looked up the article Bible to find a reference that it was by far the most successfully existing book of all time but no I had to look elsewhere for that information becase it must be unwarranted or irrelevant to the Bible article. Of course it was on the List of best selling books in the end. It's not incorrect and if it is irrelevant, why all the Christians and Jews then? Don't just whisper, admit the validity of it or admit you would reduce and exclude religious topics unless they were designated or actively in pursuit of the topic. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 12:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And note: you do not have to improve all the religious information just to improve one. Imagine applying that thinking to other articles. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 12:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You can't just put information about the bible in the opening paragraph, that suggests that veganism and christianity are somehow related, when they are not. Muleattack (talk) 14:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, God tells humans to be vegans on the first page of the bible and Christianity is based on the bible but that does not relate Christianity to veganism. Only if the vast majority of Christians seek out veganism or the vast majority of vegans seek out Christianity will they be related or even notable in relation to each other. For us to provide such information would be excessive. Excessively what, I cannot figure out. The rest is false. No better excuses? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 14:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't make it easy to go along with me in some disputes but I like to see the wiki becoming more linked up in a way that provides more and more varied knowledge, not just irrelevant facts but diversity. It's easy to go along with that kind of thing but editors rarely do if ever. Only brand new users ever respond by saying "Oh yes, that was the purpose of the encyclopedia". Experienced editors often comment on a subject to the effect that, "In no way shape or form is that factual information about this subject ever possible to include", in the fear that ridiculous fringe hypothesis and inacuracies will be presented as fact en masse or that lesser-known but contradictory information will come to light and should not. Well this is not ridiculous hypothetical or innaccurate. The value of contradictory information is not ours to evaluate beyond notability, facts and sources. Veganism is not a branch of current Christianity nor is Christianity of veganism, the pope does not convene with PETA to my knowledge, but that does not mean that facts relating the two change in either facts or notability.


 * It's hardly constructive to claim that any notable factual information should not be presented. We have less need to establish notability of the first page of the Bible, Gods words during Creation, than we do for veganism, for instance. The sentence on religious practice, in the section "Similar diets and lifestyles" is a) undoubtably pathetic and B) a lethal dose of biased editing. The rapidity of protection and dispute based upon denial is a damning confirmation of bias jockeying which appears more successful here than most other areas of the wiki. That is going to be corrected. I do not care if religion should or not be played down in our society. Removing it from knowledge is not a viable option, sorry. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). This means we have to be able to quote reliable sources for any inclusion we wish to make. The Bible is a primary source ("religious scripture" WP:PSTS), and any interpretation of it requires a secondary source (WP:NOR). Now, you did quote two secondary sources but it seems to me these two websites don't have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" (WP:RS). Is there a reputable book, peer-reviewed publication or similar source substantiating your interpretation of the Bible on this issue? Gabbe (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * http://www.gentlechristianmothers.com/topics/veggie.php
 * http://chetday.com/vegandietdangers.htm


 * Ok Gabbe, here is one of the religion sections of the International Vegetarian Unions website from this list (i.e. they have lots about religious-ideology vegetarianism), the Christian Vegetarian Society (USA and UK) about bible vs. vegan (hosted on all creatures.org), while some such as Vegan.org and PETA.org  rarely push religious ideology but PETA did as you might imagine try a campaign about on their JesusVeg.org site this is the relevant page for Genesis but you know, these popular websites like PETA.org, veganism is not something they go right in for to my knowledge it was always vegetarianism and their review of these things is always sadly lacking in that respect. There are other reliable sources that directly favour and oppose veganism which is on-topic where as vegetarianism is not. Now if you think these are not reputable enough, find us a reputable paper which has covered a veganism topic in its main space once every two years for the last 10 years which is not a piggyback of vegetarianism nutritional concerns/warnings or accusations of PETA trouble or something. There is particularly scant study on the philosophies of veganism outside animal rights and nutrition. Reputable verification is well over 90% specialist. If you are just querying Centle Christian Mothers.com, the Open Directory lists them as part of only 9 under the heading Christianity>Mothering  and Brith and Wellness.com also lists them  along with many mothering info sites. Yes they were fairly good ones picked out for their utterly opposing positions. Some other half-decent sites discussing the Bible and veganism or vegetarianism include Hyper History religious valued researchers and about.com and the particularly unstoppable reference made by the A.P.S. that creationism-ers are teaching that all creatures before The Fall were vegans. If you like a bit of amusement, the Animal Liberation Front have a particularly aggravating reputation for fact-finding and they are promoting a bible study book about Jesus being a vegan  and for some other more reputable in-depth, and more balanced (inclusive of Muslim viewpoint), study on Jesus being certainly vegetarian if not vegan The Huffington Post  and PETA (easier for quick review). Now, it's getting long for me already but I am going to make sure that the insult to any religous importance is corrected without taking in debate that religion is only worth an insult so make edits or suggestions please... there is definitely basis for a modest acknowledgment here. The current acknowledgement was added in 2007, a one sentence nothing. You could say nothing under "See also" it would appear much less biased. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 22:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I find the sources for this section to poorly reliable. It is also garden variety original research. I'm in favor of excluding it. Skinwalker (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There will be mention of ties between veganism and religion on the article beyond the current "There are also numerous religious groups that regularly or occasionally practice a similar diet, including adherents to some Buddhist traditions,[150] Hindus,[151] Sikhs,[152] Jains,[153] Eastern Orthodox Christians,[154][155] Rastafari,[156] and Seventh-day Adventists.[157]" It doesn't matter what you "find", Skinwalker, Huffington Post, PETA and APS are sources reliable beyond speculation except, possibly, in extreme exception and are only a bare minimum start. The others are all easily decent enough for wiki-standard and these are only the ones that I have put here, online alone there are thousands of references between veganism and religion, what planet are we on here? What do you want paid off to include something? Go for a hike out the mountains and you might find gold you know. Show us a reliable source that says OR grows in the garden. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Awww, are you trolling? How cute.  Skinwalker (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (e/c) I agree, this should be removed or at least moved out of the lead. While it may be appropriate to discuss the religious aspects of this subject, Christianity as a whole does not have the same relationship (as documented in reliable sources) with veganism as, for example, the Religious Society of Friends does with pacifism. Also, as the Bible has been interpreted thousands of different ways over the years, favoring one interpretation of this particular passage over another strikes me as non-NPOV. A neutral statement such as "according to survey X, about y% of vegans cite the Bible as a reason for their dietary choices" may be appropriate somewhere in the article, assuming such a study exists, and y is sufficiently large. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * See also Christian vegetarianism. Skinwalker (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Creation was the big thing and in fact makes regular news about wether it was the Big Bang or not but if you really want to debate wether Creation may be considered more notable than one event or another... A survey of vegans would be nice but they are scant on the ground besides, "What turned you" is not the only thing we have here. The Bible links itself to veganism and until that book becomes lesser notable, it already has a large chunk of the stage. Teaching people Creation is one thing, I don't find a strong arguement to prevent people teaching Darwinism, but forcing neutral facts about that book to be excluded forever, that's just not what we do here. It is widely accepted that the bible tops all other publication. Genesis is not an abstract poem. We are talking about the same job as from the top, "In the beginning there was nothing and God said Let There Be Light" (Genesis 1:1), no question that these "verses"/passages top the whole rest of the bible inside out. To squeeze Genesis 1:26 onto the second page you'd need pages so small that this paragraph wouldn't nearly fit on it. If you are thinking maybe Jesus would top that, sorry, Creation tops everything else in the Bible, even if you belive in Darwinism, there is no Darwinism in the bible, the scientific value of the Bible should not be relevant here. In the Beginning, God said "Let there be veganism", that is basically what we have here in RS about the most succesful book in existence. The merits are no excuse to exclude. That is the final sum. And yes, Christian vegetarianism informs the reader about veganism in Creation but the topic is vegetarianism through the teachings of Christ which is spot on but not exactly on topic here. Cheers, <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 01:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What did you mean by this edit summary? Please clarify. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * When the Panto is getting good, Suffusion of Yellow, when the kids are all shouting at everything, there is usually one or more "oh yes, oh no" routines. Usually it is when the most evillest character comes out from behind the hero, his girlfreind, something like that and it turns into an arguement between the crowd of kids and the actor "He's behind you!!"..., "Oh no he isn't!!"..., "Oh yes he is!!". So, you are argueing with a child and you are saying "yes" and the child is saying "no". After that you can say, "Oh yes it is!" and the child knows what it is like to say "oh yes it is!", so it is the fun way of saying, "Be good when you know you should." So we're having fun.!


 * We have gone over notability and sources. Let's get off the notablity. Religion will have to go on this page and Creation will have to be included. Assumptions that religion may be non-notable or unsourceable are false. I do not find the name "Ghandi" on the page either, for instance, or similarly the name "Hitler". Veganism is not a club and it cannot be painted in a more favourable light than it already has. I'd love to argue the merits of religion for those with concern but they are basically irrelevant to inclusion/exclusion which is the feature of this string of thread so far. You can lay NPOV down like a leash but total suppression is out of the question ridiculous, isn't it? Am I wrong here? Is religion a fringe theory or an unpublished rareity? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 15:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Christianity is mentioned. Hitler and Ghandi were not vegans. WWJD? Eat fish, of course. KellenT 20:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where? "Mentioned" can go in "See also" without making any difference. Excerpt from Ghandi "Gandhi had been a fruitarian, but started taking goat's milk on the advice of his doctor. He never took dairy products obtained from cows because of his view initially that milk is not the natural diet of man, disgust for cow blowing, and, specifically, because of a vow to his late mother." and Hitler introduced Animal Rights to the world. The best I have ever seen against him being vegan was a report that he ate some German sausage once and here on Wikipedia, a broken link on Hitlers vegetarianism which claims a report that he ate many hen eggs. Besides, in the days of Hitler and Ghandi, vegetarianism as you might expect, meant eating vegetables as a diet, the topic of this page, of which those two are guilty wether or not they also did other things.


 * Anyways, maybe that will be good for the article but the thing that lacks most is religion which will have to go on the page especially Creation. Disputing its notability is ridiculous. The APS Physics article even allows for a nice cultural reference. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 13:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So folkes, I am going to go ahead to format and ref something about Genesis and start it off in some sort of new section I suppose. Not right now, a ridiculous hour for me, but just keeping the ball rolling. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 06:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Religion, creationism and other folklore have no place in this article, except if they are widely acknowledged as the reason for veganism, and then only as a mention. Bob98133 (talk) 13:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean Bob, only cuisine, the food itself, is below religion on this articles list so ye usual suspects are teaching us all something here. Outside of the "Nutrition" section there is not one paragraph, not even cuisine, without the mention of animal products and even then some. That is misrepresentation, like a butchers handbook. WP:NPOV. This article is off-ending the veganism in favour of information about something else in the same way the supermarket is. If I were obsessed with animal butchery and only obsessed with animal butchery, the veganism would be a false value and I would be plain old crazy. Forget the wine boys we're havin crazy tonight! It goes the opposite of that and I presume those familiar will agree. To persecute for butchery, go find a butcher. To feed a vegan, don't go find a butcher. The non-soapbox value has to be added and it starts with culture, humanity. Culture often starts with religion which thankfully, before twisting is applied, is often supportive of veganism and can be added by and large without even swapping something for an egg or being remotely discussive of remains. Is that not what veganism is about? You really have to turn the vegan away from this article? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop the ridiculous grandstanding and go find some reliable sources. KellenT 17:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed section - Veganism in religion
{{quotation| Religion is for many an important part of human life. Major religious organisations rarely promote true vegetarianism but some do show signs of veganism, particularly Christianity with numerous indications of veganism throughout scripture.

Christianity and Judaism
The evidence of vegetarianism in the Bible is overwhelming. In the Old Testament, God is described as commanding the first man and woman to eat plant based food with the most frequent translation, "fruit which bears seed". After The Great Flood, God permits a wider human diet but theologians in favour of veganism and vegetarianism, who are in the minority, point out that this was a time when plant life would be almost non-existant (after many weeks under sea water) and that God and Jesus are quoted many times in the bible instructing humans to be protective and helpful of other creatures. God makes a covenant with Israel that he should break any bow, sword or weapon of war so that all creatures may sleep safely. In the Christian New testament, Peter, a disciple of Jesus, claimed to live only on bread and olives to which he added other vegetables on rare occasions and James, Jesus brother and immediate successor as religious leader, and his followers beleived that Jesus was strictly vegetarian although it was the following of Paul the Apostle, who never actually met Jesus, not James which became the foundation of the Christian church today. Paul was of the opinion that faith was weak among those who ate "only vegetables". The topic of Jesus Christ, as with all Abrahamic faith, is also impotant to Islamic faith.

In modern times, the $27 million Creation Museum in Kentucky, USA created controversy after its opening on May 28th 2007. The museums exhibits show Adam and Eve in scenes with veg eating tyrannosaurus. Creationism is controversial because it may confuse children who are learning about evolution. Veganism and vegetarianism is not promoted by the major Christian, Jewish and Islamic institutions.

Hinduism
Hindu organisations promote vegetarianism and veganism but particularly notable was revered spiritual leader of India Mahatma Ghandi who had been a fruitarian until he started taking goat's milk on the advice of his doctor. He never took dairy products obtained from cows because of his view initially that milk is not the natural diet of man, dissaproval of farming methods, and because of a vow to his late mother.

Other
There are also numerous other religious groups that regularly or occasionally practice a similar diet, including adherents to some Buddhist traditions, Sikhs, Jains, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Rastafari, and Seventh-day Adventists.

Comments
This proposed section is based on fact and notability from undeniably reliable sources as suggested by the Vegan Society and direct from groups such as PETA, the American Physical Society, Wikisource (Ghandi info parsed from on-wiki), the International Vegetarian Union, The Christian Vegetarian Association and the Huffington Post. All of the sources, exluding the APS Physics article, are rock solid works of published study, not daily articles.

Rather than asking if I am funning or trolling, why doesn't someone discuss the topic instead of bias-jockeying the article. Folk asked at the peer reviews what was lacking in the article and they were told this was it. f it should not be added, why did you not try to convince the reviewers of that? Made up our minds since did we? It's rather sad to feel this article, about something I love to promote, is so jockeyed. An ocean of philosophising acceptance and love, backed up with a staunch hypocrasy. Well done lads. You show them Jesus-lovers what they are good for. Don't bother trying to change critturs when you can overcome them, echo, cheers. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 17:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No not trolling genuinely frustrated. Months ago now, I had it out with these Indian sounding guys that Hare Krisnas are iconic in "the English-speaking world". I wanted to enter a small peice about them on Bhagavata Gita because the Hare Krisnas are the main event in spreading knowledge of that ancient book over here. Most if not all the scripture refs on that article are from a Hare Krisna website which these guys openly admitted. But are the Hare Krisnas themelves worth noting? We went on for maybe three weeks. It is easy to cite the cultural signifigance of the Hare Krisnas (who are all vegans). Nobody else was interested. What did they do? Quoted a load of obscure 50s and 60s pamphlet books and jockeyed the article. Now the Hare Krisnas are deleted from the article entirely. Do they still quote the website? Of course they do, who else would they quote? Was this because I was annoying them? No way. The whole sect that Hare Krisna follows, a core part of Hinduism, isn't even mentioned on the Hinduism Portal, why? Because they're Hare Krisnas. They are evangelical. When the regular contributors are blanketly inconsiderate of an important aspect of a topic, you have minority abuse. That equates racism. That sucks. Who sucks that? It didn't take seconds to revert a test edit and ask me to come to talk page. And talk to myself it would seem? Yeah well. Some people have more than others to talk about. Wait until you really do seperate the imagination from knowledge. We'll all be happier then. Should I be leaving these words here? Well no-one else did and this appears to be the place. I think I have enough "no good will come of it" for one week but you go ahead and find your good in it or in bits of it whatever twist makes you best. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 06:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, a detailed coverage of "veganism in religion" would seem more belonging in Vegetarianism and religion rather than as a section in this article.
 * Secondly, a statement like "The evidence of vegetarianism in the Bible is overwhelming" is pretty sensational. For that reason we have a rule saying that "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources" (WP:REDFLAG). If you want to include "The evidence for [...] in the Bible is overwhelming" you would at least need to cite a reputable Biblical scholar to that effect, someone like Gordon Wenham or John Barton. Kamran Pasha and The Huffington Post are not exceptional sources. Gabbe (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But don't the like of APS, Vegan Society and PETA buy an automatic free ticket to this article so long as they remain reputable sources? Huffington is a great rag but hey, Gabbe, as rock of old, why don't you just trim it and throw it in and I wouldn't even care just to see the bias trimmed until an expert grew an interest. I might have asked about adding Hare Krishnas (probably not at this stage!!) as well but as for content particulars... I don't think these guys are up for it. They were told a long time ago what the article lacks. They do not collaborate and when they elaborate elsewhere... I dissaprove the dominating theme and lack of balance and changing it even slightly is not looking like coming off my bat. 02:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The likes of Vegan Society and PETA are certainly reputable sources for their own opinions, and typically also the opinions of vegans and animal rights proponents respectively. But I wouldn't use them as a source on anything related to religion. Neither the Vegan Society nor PETA are particularly regarded for their religious scholarship. It's great that you want to "trim the bias" (I'm all for that!), but we have to do so in accordance with the content policies, particularly WP:V and WP:NOR. Gabbe (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well that's a contradiction in terms Gabbe. What makes you think that John Barton and Gordon Wenham are interested in veganism? I think you would be very lucky and have oceans of recordings and manuscript to even find one of them make a phrase about the topic one way or another let alone a worthwhile study so they are certainly not the experts. Hypothetical fringe theories are one thing, that thing you just made up one day. Studies of cave paintings, books etc. that is like geography and geology. It is mapping not making up. If you are a cave holing expert, you are the guy who says what is down the hole not your prof from way back when and even the prof would agree with that. Gordon Wenham and John Barton, I should imagine, have not studied the area of vegetarianism with any particular concern or they would be easily recognisable from the areas where that sort of thing is pursued and if they haven't, they aren't interested in it so they are not really a source for information. It's hardly fair to say all the material in the world is unsuitable that is really beyond any of us to say. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I mean, what you say about exceptional claims, "overwhelming" etc. is absolutely correct but to say that vegans cannot be Christian at all unless Christians be vegan, well that's just not our place even if you know a lot of Christians because they wouldn't agree with that either. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 17:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your argument. Are you saying that Wenham and Barton are not experts on the Bible, and that the article implies that "vegans cannot be Christian"? Gabbe (talk) 18:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am saying that Wenham and Barton do not seem to cover the topic. Vegetarianism isn't their forte. We can see quite clearly that notable vegetarian supporters find an interest in it. Now what do we do? And no, that the article says "Christians can't be vegan until Wenham and Barton are." The management of the cuisine and religion areas is quite clearly ridiculous out of bounds here Gabbe, have you not looked? Is it not tightly sealed? I don't think the wiki accepts strict reliance on Wenhams and Bartons where no material is available..? I will not be protecting it anyway. A fine example of cutting your nose off to spite your face, whichever angle this is being pursued from. It's either less than expert propaganda or, more worryingly, the opposite. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vegetables versus meat
A quick search of the article reveals that the word "vegetable" appeas 7 times whilst the word "meat" appears 41 times. Far be it from me to say but I did think that the veganism topic was rather opposite to that. Is there some way that we can balance out the article to represent veganism truthfully? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 17:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF?
 * "endeavor not to use or consume vegetables of many kinds."
 * KellenT 18:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I missed a word. Seems to be a lot of that going on here. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 18:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Vegan Society references
The Vegan Society seems to have broken all the links to this page most notably the citation [1] and the Donald Watson quote. I would try to fix them but I do not know what to search for, sorry. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 17:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed these. KellenT 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Honey, silk, nonsense
The newest edits about people who say they are vegan not really being vegan by definition is really silly. Particularly since it is followed by "Vegans may avoid honey for moral [33], environmental [34], health [35] or a number of other reasons." According to the previous section, vegans don't avoid these products; if they use them they are not vegans, so no problem. The vegetarian article went through the same sort of nonsense with people who eat fish yet consider themselves to be vegetarians. The entire second ph of this section could be dropped, which would improve the article by removing the nitpicking that contradicts itself. Bob98133 (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * In this edit, the article is actually saying that users of honey and silk are vegans by the definition, "some vegans", rather than "possibly vegans". It draws a conclusion. Petty isn't it? Less so than keeping it from being fixed this one might suggest. If they are unconfirmed as vegans it is only a claim and it should offend no-one to be truthful. I do not expect any edit of mine to remain on the page for some reason but I could easily fix it. Who are we to be vegan when we might offend some larvae monsters? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 19:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discovery.com says about the recent 50% decline in the worlds be population:-

"The top suspects are a parasite, an unknown virus, some kind of bacteria, pesticides, or a one-two combination of the top four, with one weakening the honeybee and the second killing it."

and I say if there is some reason that the Vegan Society respects concern for the care of insects, let's have it. You may think that "Oh I never heard anyone who said that except the Vegan Society" well here is one more. The milk of little bee babies who literally cause the food we eat to grow whilst syrup grows on trees. Honey is not better it is just different and if you think that is special try Linda McCartneys vegan meat... yeeeu... It may be a particular concern for vegans asked and evidence suggests that to be a seriously notable position so, position it and in case of opposing views *describe them* as opposing views. Do not review them and pick one you think sounds best. This is not a challenge it is merely the neutral point of view. If you think that providing both sides is a challenging idea, in this case, you haven't acknowledged the middle ground. Who do we think we are Weekly Review? No, Wikipedia is the all-time review of the weekly review and that is best. Being picky is just filling up this talk page while the article is particularly skinny in the healthy areas, sorry. As a particular story gathering questions on vegan parenting went a few years back, it wasn't feeding the kids vegan food that made the parents abusive, it was not feeding them enough of anything at all. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 23:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that this is not a general discussion forum on Veganism. See WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TALK. Please keep your posts concise and to the point. Gabbe (talk) 23:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democray of votes it is a fragile web of opinion at times and that is what we are discussing here, Gabbe, what is or not a vegan. Simple obviously isn't working. The article has one of the deepest saddle prints I have seen so far. What I typed was on topic, do what you will, there is no need to be brief when obviously the brief method is distorting things in a questionable fashion. BOO! <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 23:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there is some confusion amongst me and others here. What is the basic point you wish to convey? Is it that there is an issue with consumers of honey being characterized as vegans, or is it something else? If we are to come to a consensus on change we must first understand what is at issue. -kotra (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is difficult to discuss anything with you when you're always talking *around* the subject rather than directly about it. KellenT 10:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The weight of discussion was outweighing the ease with which to describe the item. "Vegan" has become a steady and singular dictionary definition. The bee thing may be worth mentioning but the how thing shouldn't be difficult because the dictionary makes it quite clear. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 11:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well done RTG, IMO you do talk in riddles but I think the edit you've made solves the neutrality problem very well Muleattack (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks but it's still short on the religion and culture not to mention the "cuisine". <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 10:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this section to avoid usage of the term 'vegan' or 'people who identify as vegan' (etc). KellenT 18:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that someone, perhaps Kellen, has reverted my insertion of "alleged" before "rights of mosquitoes". Whether mosquitoes are the kind of beings that can have moral rights is contentious; in fact, many or most animal-rights activists and philosophers doubt that insects can have moral rights (since to have moral rights, one must have interests, and to have interests one must have conscious desires). Given that Varner and others doubt/deny that insects can have moral rights, it makes no sense to talk about their failing to respect "the rights of mosquitoes". To say "the rights of mosquitoes" without a qualifier like "alleged" is to inject a point-of-view into the article. Scales (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think WP:WTA would apply. How about saying "obliged to respect the well-being of mosquitoes", or "do not feel obliged to avoid harming (or killing) mosquitoes"? Something which avoids problematic words like "rights" and "alleged". Gabbe (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I removed it. It's totally unnecessary in that section. It's clear that "the rights of mosquitos" does not take a POV as to whether or not these rights exist, but is interpreted inside of this discussion as to whether or not they have rights at all. In articles like this it's insane to try to mitigate every single statement because there's so many different viewpoints at work. Presenting a NPOV does not mean writing every sentence like "there may OR MAY NOT be this person who ALLEGEDLY works as a philosopher OR MAYBE NOT who some consider to have rights BUT OTHERS DO NOT" etc etc etc. There might be better ways to phrase something which sidesteps all these petty POV side arguments. If so, go with that, but inserting mitigating words into everything is a disservice to our readers and to all of us trying to produce better content. KellenT 01:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be on this page. Mosquitoes are not vegetables and they arent replicated by any vegetable recipes I know or beleive in. This article should be based on a marketplace of beautiful grown food and dishes, instead it is a rant in a house of butchery. I know that is what veganism is reduced to in most places but it is not what veganism is. That is the animal rights and slaughter articles. Nobody made veganism up, they just named it. The idea of getting folk like Scales to question eating insects here is just off the scope. The Vegan Society, for instance, says "T]he word "veganism" denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude" Let's minimise animal cruelty on the article and give up debating possible enhancements of it. Let's remove both the sections and redirect them to Animal rights and Animal products. Apropriate the thing about eating honey rather than slapping it into animal products and leave the animal junk where it should be except where it is pointing out examples that vegans are known for their liking or disliking of them. Ample supply for this. Only excuse not to is setting up another protest but you can't turn the inside of a home into a protest permanently and if you've nothing to advertise... <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 07:42, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Chomsky
I removed the following Chomsky text. I think Chomsky is interesting, and it's great that he makes any comment on vegetarianism at all, but it's not really very relevant to this article, and certainly out of proportion to the other sections. KellenT 13:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Political activist and philosopher, Noam Chomsky has commented on the moral foundation of animal rights and vegetarianism:

NC: In every (aspect of human life) that you look at, there are questions about authority and domination that ought to be raised constantly, and that very rarely have satisfactory answers..As a matter of fact, you can even ask the same about your relation to animals. The questions can be asked there, too, in fact are being asked. Q: You're an animal rights activist? NC: I think it's a serious question. To what extent do we have a right to torture animals? I think it's a very good thing that that question ... Q: Torture? NC: Experiments are torturing animals, let's say. That's what they are. So to what extent do we have a right to torture animals for our own good? I think that's not a trivial question. Q: What about eating? NC:Same question. Q: Are you a vegetarian? NC: I'm not, but I think it's a serious question. If you want my guess, my guess would be that ... Q: A hundred years from now everyone will be. NC: I don't know if it's a hundred years, but it seems to me if..society continues to develop without catastrophe on something like the course that you can sort of see over time, I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it moves toward vegetarianism and protection of animal rights. In fact, what we've seen over the..years, including the twentieth century, there is a widening of the moral realm, bringing in broader and broader domains of individuals who are regarded as moral agents. Q: Nothing could be happening to that underlying, wired-in, inate, intrinsic character... That can't be changing. NC: No, but it can get more and more realized. You can get a better and better understanding of it. We're self-conscious beings. We're not rocks. And we can get more and more understanding of our own nature, not because we read a book about it..but just through experience, including historical experience, which is part of our own personal experience because it's embedded in our culture, which we enter into. Q: So then it's plausible that vegetarians, animal rights advocates and the like are just a couple of steps ahead in discerning something about ... NC: It's possible. I think I'd certainly keep an open mind on that. You can understand how it could be true. It's certainly a pretty intelligible idea to us. I think one can see the moral force to it.


 * I understand that this is not the best place for it, but that passage definitely must not be lost. Maybe it should go in animal rights, or in Chomsky? David Olivier (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NPS Gabbe (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The primary source is a longer transcript, so that's no problem. KellenT 16:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was thinking of the part that says: "In Wikipedia articles, quotes of any original texts [...] should be kept to an appropriate length." Gabbe (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you quote Linda McCartney "If slaughter houses had glass walls the whole world would be vegetarian." The refs are on her article and Pauls video http://www.meat.org Aren't those kind of quotes truer advocacy and equally or more notable than activists who don't pursue the topic? <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The Linda McCartney quote is irrelevant as well. Unless directly linked to veganism and extremely relevant, quotes such as these belong in biographical articles, if anywhere at all. n-k, 02:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it is not directed enough but it would be interesting if we could see some mention of who was notable vegans like also Carl Lewis and Cold Play and some of their quotes would make more applicable than Chomsky. Lewis claimed veganism helped him to run faster. Fastest man in the world without steroids for how long? 20 years? I must find it somewhere in a quote later. He does make his living today as a cuisine expert of sorts doesn't he? Or at least he does God-knows how many TV cooking shows and cooking equipment ranges. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 03:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually seven years in total but more than 20 on the indoor long jump record. <font size="2" face="Impact">~ R.T.G 16:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)