Talk:Veganism/Archive06

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 "Dietary Vegan" 2 As concerns the flawed studies in the "health criticism" section 3 Meat bad for health 4 Help with Animal rights links? 5 article length 6 sigh.. 7 Difficulty section 8 Shortening an overlong article 9 Iodine 10 Less Bias? 11 Hinduism and veganism 12 Vitamin B12 13 Studies suggest and or found and shown? 14 Health criticism section 15 What happened? 16 Length; Nutrition 17 Last line in the study 18 What Dr. Fuhrman said: 19 Ethical criticism 20 birth defects issue 21 Pesticides, Chemicals, Industrial Agriculture 22 Health & Quoting sources 23 Africa Study 24 Reliable sources policy: Self-published articles 24.1 Policy 24.2 Analysis and application 25 In theory or in practice? 26 Food Standards Agency Report 27 Carl Lewis and Veganism 28 Eco-Eating 29 Famous Vegans 30 Supplements 31 Contradiction tag removed 32 Ischemic heart disease 33 Great Article 34 template for deletion 35 UN report on livestock & environment 36 Citation templates 37 Levels

[edit] "Dietary Vegan"

The reason I found it necessary to edit the article to replace "dietary vegan" with "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" is that veganism is about a whole philosophy of life, not just a diet. Diet just happens to be an important aspect of this way of life. Calling a pure vegetarian a "dietary vegan" makes about as much sense as calling somebody that eats kosher foods a "dietary Jew." -Random Violin Guy 23:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with your sentiment, people do apply the term "dietary vegan." Obviously, people who fall into this classification do not subscribe to otherwise standard vegan positions. Kellen ^T 23:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since we seem to agree that "dietary veganism" is poor term to describe a pure vegetarian, and since this is an encyclopedia, I hope you don't mind if I swap my change back in. I think it makes perfect sense, and I don't consider it a minor point at all. But, since I don't want to get into a revert war, I'll wait for a little feedback first. -Random Violin Guy 00:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It may be a poor term, but it is fairly commonly used. Though in my experience the term "strict vegetarian" is also often used to refer to a vegan diet. So I suggest that the article should say "dietary vegans or strict vegetarians". I think "total vegetarian" or "pure vegetarian" are less often used in this context, so I'm not sure if they should also be mentioned. --Vclaw 00:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I added "strict vegetarians" to it. Kellen ^T 08:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "Strict vegetarian" could be very misleading as it is often used by people who strictly follow a (non-vegan) vegetarian diet. We have a few Indian restaurants locally that are "pure vegetarian" but their dishes includes ghee, paneer, etc. I preferred "dietary vegan" alone.--Michig 11:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that someone has changed this again to just strict vegetarian which is totally misleading. I know a few strict vegetarians, none of which has a vegan diet. Face facts - some vegans choose the diet for reasons other than ethics. Dietary vegan is commonly used so let's keep it in.--Michig 08:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Veganism is a philosophy and way of life in which one avoids the use of ALL animal products, including leather and wool. Eating a diet free of meat-eggs-and-dairy doesn't make you vegan any more than eating only kosher foods makes you Jewish. The term "dietary vegan" is completely misleading because it implies being vegan, when in actuality, it only means you avoid certain foods. I understand that the definitions of the non-lacto non-ovo vegetarian diet are blurry, which is why I suggested listing "total vegetarians, strict vegetarians, or pure vegetarians" instead of just one of the three. Or perhaps it would be best to just leave out this whole labeling spree and say that "the vegan diet excludes any animal products (including meat, eggs, dairy, and honey)." ---RandomViolinGuy 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For you, yes. For me, yes. But not for everybody who applies the term "vegan." Kellen ^T 12:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, asserting that Veganism is a philosophy and way of life as if one had a personal and all-encompassing lease on the term is simply absurd. Many who practice ethical veganism do not regard veganism per se as a philosophy at all. For example, while some Preference Utilitarians and western Buddhists may practice veganism in the fullest and strictest sense (i.e., avoiding use or consumption of any and all animal products on a consistent basis), veganism is here not the philosophic root cause. Rather, veganism is in this case a practice which is a consequence of a larger philosophy in which vegan considerations are encompassed, even though it may be functionally indistinguishable from the practice of individuals who consider themselves ideological vegans (i.e., vegans who consider veganism "their philosophy and way of life"). Certainly, I do not consider veganism either my philosophy or my way of life. And yet this notwithstanding, considerations within my bioethical philosophy necessitate that I neither facilitate nor practice consumption of animal products or destruction of animal life at any time, thus causing me to describe myself as a vegan, but with this veganism as an aspect of a much larger ethical outlook in which veganism is merely a footnote. The distinction I tend to propose is between ethical vegans who practice veganism for bioethical reasons, whatever they may be, vs. dietary vegans who do not (at least chiefly) practice veganism for philosophic reasons. If one really wants to give a special status to individuals who consider veganism their all-encompassing life philosophy under which all other things are subsumed, I suppose I favour ideological vegan to signify that this is not merely an ethical tenet but rather a generalised philosophy for said persons --Yst 21:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

There's a big difference between calling yourself vegan, and actually being vegan. Joanne Stepaniak wrote a good essay on the name game: http://www.vegsource.com/jo/essays/namegame.htm . I still think the best way to get around all this labeling and reverting is to take that part out, and replace it with a description of the diet, rather than a name for it. These terms are too muddy for us to authoritatively use one or the other. -RandomViolinGuy 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So just strike "People who avoid eating all animal products, but who otherwise use animal by-products (for example, leather shoes) are commonly referred to as strict vegetarians or dietary vegans." ? Kellen ^T 23:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. I'm gonna go ahead and take care of that. -RandomViolinGuy 04:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Some sources, such as airlines, treat vegan/strict vegetarian/pure vegetarian as one of the same. This should be noted on this article [1]. nirvana2013 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I think that it's mostly to make it easy for them, though. Airlines, in my experience, aren't exactly dietary experts, but if they make all Vegetarian meal options Vegan, then they don't have to deal with two different types of food for special diets. That also means they'll make them okay for folks with diabetes, and Kosher, among other things. Canæn 05:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] As concerns the flawed studies in the "health criticism" section

The "possible limitations" that I had in place will either stay, or the studies will be removed. It's obvious that throwing in two studies by the same group of German researchers, on less than 100 participants (in the case of the first study, less than 30), with no mention of duration (and no mention of "vegan" in the second study) serves no purpose but to baselessly attack veganism. Find some peer-reviewed studies that can't be so easily criticized, allow the limitations to be added in, or remove the studies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyle key (talk • contribs) 16:31, August 6, 2006.

Please look up the original articles, which contain the information you say is lacking. Abstracts typically don't contain all of the relevant details of a paper. B12 deficiency and homocysteine excess are well-documented problems with vegan, and to a lesser extent, vegetarian diets. The scientific literature is quite clear on the topic, and the passages in question were written by a medical doctor.

My feeling about adding explicatory content, especially when we comment on scientific articles, is that it should not be done unless there are glaring errors in the original paper. That is, if we want to criticize a scientific study, we should find a peer-reviewed article where the conclusions of the original study are criticized, and cite that article. Take a look at WP:NOR, where uncited explication is looked upon as original research, which is unencyclopedic. So, my opinion is that we should either cite the articles, or not cite the articles, but not include uncited criticism. B12 deficiency can be remedied by vegan-grade supplements derived from yeast (I'm not sure about how to deal with elevated homocysteine levels), but it is a big enough problem that it should be mentioned, and the reader should be informed about how to avoid the risk while staying vegan. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:17, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Luke, Homocysteine levels are inversely-related to B12. People with low blood B12 have elevated homocysteine levels, so effectively both are manifestations of the same problem, which is insufficient intake and/or absorption of dietary B12.

The fact of the matter is that many issues with non-vegan vegetarianism apply to veganism as well, but (as I've noted above) there are few studies which are written specifically about veganism. Since this is the case, having some such studies included is appropriate. Kellen ^T 09:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Meat bad for health

I have updated the entry about the study by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin. I have tried to make it fair and neutral in tone, as I believe that their conclusion that meat is unhealthy, with regards to the diseases they cite, is based upon the studies they have included and should be in the article as their opinion as well as a generally accepted view. I think the entry is now more specific and conforms to NPOV. I would like to gain a consensus if User:Rotten still feels the entry should be reverted.

For details please see page 15 of Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin's paper: "Meat-Eaters Aiding Global Warming?: New Research Suggests What You Eat as Important as What You Drive" - Solar 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"Generally Accepted" that meat is bad for you? Nonsense. Show some evidence that it's "generally accepted". I'm deleting that section. Thanks.--Rotten 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Rotten's edits are appropriate. Solar, you may want to create a new article about the relationship between meat eating and health. —Viriditas | Talk 19:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to leave the change from 'is generally accepted' to 'claimed', although it should be pointed out that "Rotten's" eloquent response is not an accurate quote. The edit did not say "meat" is bad for you, it said that animal fats are generally considered to have adverse effects on health. A statement that is quite true. I think generally the section is more specific and is an improvement on the original edit. I will consider creating an in-depth article on meat and its effects on health, but this section needs to mention health, as it is important to the paper the paragraph is dealing with. Thanks - Solar 10:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe saturated fat (which is BS IMO but it is claimed by the mainstream media that it's bad for you). But how about fish oil? That's generally accepted to be quite good for you. You vegans need to show some restraint.--Rotten 15:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement "Studies have proven that a plant based diet is far healthier than an omnivorous diet" is false. It is cited to PETA India, one of the LEAST reliable sources for objective, unbiased info. There are people who are very long lived and healthy on a primarily meat based diet, as well as people who are long lived and healthy on a plant based diet. Simply saying veg*nism is inherently healthier than an omnivorous, or even carnivorous diet is just plain stupid. JesseG88 01:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

More cites added. Do you have a cite for your claims? I'm not a Vegan, but a diet consisting of meat and dairy products is far less healthy (and problematic) than a plant based diet. There's a considerable amount of research on the subject proving the claim.--Scribner 02:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also research that suggests the exact opposite. Here are some sources: [2], [3], [4] - JesseG88 11:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The "eco eating" reference is exceedingly poor and POV. Please replace it with something better, or remove the sentence that it supports. Kellen ^T 15:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Damn you hippies! Hempeater 03:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Animal rights links?

A while back I tried unsuccessfully to defend the addition of a couple of external links that I thought were high quality and relevant. Since there are editors here who are super-strict about external links, can I call upon such editors to help me trim the massive list of external links in the Animal rights article? I have tried many times to trim that huge list of links to animal rights orgs. to a reasonable number, but SlimVirgin insists on keeping them all in, even though there exists an entire separate article devoted to that topic: List of animal rights groups. Thanks, -MichaelBluejay 14:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow. That's a crapload of unnecessary links. In principle, I agree that those links should be harshly pruned. However, I am hesitant to enter in an edit war with the user you refer to. S/he has squatted the vast majority of animal rights-related pages and refuses to listen to legitimate criticism even from editors sympthetic to her viewpoint (as i gather from reading your contributions on Talk:Animal rights). Sh/e also interprets such legitimate criticism as a personal attack, as you have probably realized, and seems to have enough free time and "cabal" standing to revert edits at will, soon after they are made. We would need a "bipartisan" group of editors (e.g. more than just you and me, and consisting of editors who typically approach the subject from a pro and anti direction) to effect the changes you desire. I am willing to help, but we will need several more volunteers. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps propose a completely new, culled set of links on the Talk page. Then other users will probably have some additions, but since you're starting from a positive (proposing something new) rathr than a negative (cutting away what exists), you might have more success. Also, since you can propose a very short initial list, it's less likely it'll end up looking like the current one, which I agree is far too long! WP:ISNOT a web directory. Kellen ^T 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I also agree with the above comments related to the links and SlimVirgin's conduct. I think a vote would be a good idea, this way we can find a consensus and no one user has more power. - Solar 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article length

thie length of the article has now exceeded 51 kb so it should be tageed as very long.--Lucy-marie 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can't it just go here? It's not a helpful thing for readers of the article to see and doesn't really deserve the space devoted to it. In any case, the first thing that should get pruned is the nutrition section, which several people have expressed an intent to move to Vegan nutrition, but nobody has ever done so. Kellen ^T 09:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The tag needs to be clearly visible to all ediors, so that editors know the article may be getting out of control in length and requie pruning in certian areas. Adding the tag conforms to the MOS on article length.--Lucy-marie 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] sigh..

Many people here and on google, say it is also a diet. The first sentence should change and include a dietary definition as well. --fs 22:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While veganism is considered by many to be a lifestyle, it is first and foremost a diet. "Diet" meaning a system of eating, not a method of weight loss. Unfortunately "diet" has both meanings, but the former primary definition. American Heritage: "diet: (1) The usual food and drink of a person or animal." -MichaelBluejay

This may be a true definition of the word diet but changing the first sentence to that kind of defintion could result in ambiguities. People could not be wrong in thinking it was almost a fad people undertake. This kind of diet is very close to a detox diet which has the primary purpose of weight loss. So if the word diet is to be used then the word diet need giving a specific meaning or an alternative word shold be used. I am vegan and do not consider it a diet but consider it my diet based on ethical and environmental concerns rather than weight loss so a definition of the word diet is essential.--Lucy-marie 11:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

the problem is without any conclusion on that matter on the talk page the sentence remains and it was reverted to its previous state after I changed it to a "either a philosophy+diet etc. or a diet". --fs 17:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don´t confuse diet (what you decide to put in your mouth generally) with dieting (short term objective). I too am a vegan and would consider it a dietary choice. I became a vegan because of nutritional and health benefits. The ethical part of veganism followed as secondary for me. 201.240.171.215 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

sorry, ye, that's what i mean, english is not my native. --fs 18:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Difficulty section

Obtuse quote taken from criticism: Many health supplements (vitamins, minerals, herbal alternatives, etc.) are placed inside capsules made of animal-based gelatin [1] [2]. Though online retailers have emerged selling vegan alternatives to such products, and vegan-friendly multivitamins and supplements can now be found in most health food stores, it is legally available only in the developed world.

Huh? What is only available in the developed world? Can someone who understands this sentence rejig it a bit? Cheers! Mujinga 20:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty section is not written well. I'm making it a Discussion section of it's own. ilsott

[edit] Shortening an overlong article

This article is good and overlong. I would suggest:

1 Moving more nutritional info to the vegan nutrition page

2 Sorting out the introduction, which is a bit unwieldy at present .. i would suggest moving the stats about us and uk vegans to its own section

I am happy to help with these changes, but I thought I would broach the subject here as I dont recall making any edits on this page before today .. Mujinga 21:04, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iodine

I have seen reference to the UK having low levels of iodine in the soil due to the last ice-age, this reference comes from the Vegan Society. I have recently contacted them to see where they got this information, I received the following reply: "According to Stephen Walsh PHD in his book 'Plant Based Nutrition and Health' (The Vegan Society, ISBN 0-907337-27-9) "The iodine content of plant foods depends on the iodine content of the soil, which varies greatly from one part of the world to another. Iodine in the soil is low in many areas, including most regions that were covered by ice during the last Ice Age". (p106)". I have not been able to find an independent reference that confirms this. Due to conversations I have had recently with scientists I am inclined to be sceptical, does anyone have a link to a scientific paper or other research that confirms that there are low levels of Iodine in the UK soil. Thanks - Solar 08:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whitehead, DC (1979). "Iodine in the U.K. Environment with Particular Reference to Agriculture". Journal of Applied Ecology 16 (1): 269-279. DOI:10.2307/2402746. 

Sorry, I dont have access to the full article. --Mig77^(t) 10:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm skeptical as well. These two references[5][6] state that in some parts of the UK iodine is deficient in the soil (causing local effects such as "Derbyshire neck", lol), but that it is normal in the rest of the country. Since these articles deal with a local study of iodine concentration, I wouldn't treat them as definitive on the country-wide concentration, but they probably cite something that does directly study the national concentration. I am not aware of a mechanism by which iodine is removed from soil or blocked from entering soil by glacial ice, but I am a chemist and not a geologist. A related Pubmed search suggests that regional differences in iodine consumption are caused by eating foods that interfere with iodine uptake.[7]Cheers, Skinwalker 10:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added a 'Not verified' tag to the Iodine section until we can find clear information supporting the Vegan Society's position or some information with a different opinion that can be added to make the section more balanced. - Solar 10:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Less Bias?

In the next major edit/reworking of the page, could an attempt be made at providing a more balanced perspective? I have nothing against veganism, but this reads like a "20 Reasons You Should Be Vegan" article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erdrickgr (talk • contribs).

Perhaps you missed the giant criticism and controversy section, which is almost half the length of the article. Kellen ^T 15:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism and veganism

I have added a citation request regarding the reference to Hinduism. As far as I am aware most Hindus eat cheese, yoghurt and ghee/clarified butter (lacto vegetarianism). To include their reference under veganism seems unnecessary, and even misleading. nirvana2013 19:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, didn't miss it. I was hoping for a balanced treatment, not "Section 1: Be Vegan, it's cool," and then an added "Section 2: Don't be vegan, you'll cause birth defect and other bad stuff". It's as though the article is written by two seperate people/groups. Which I guess might be accurate.

I have re-worded the sentence. Let me know if it is not satisfactory. nirvana2013 01:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've every reason to believe that this is exactly what's happened, over time. On another note, most hindus don't eat cheese, just because Cheese is a relatively western food item. Most hindus eat rice, naan, and curry, because most Hindus are poor Indians. That's not racist, that's not looking down on them, that's just the state of things in large portions of India, from what I've seen/heard. Jains, on the other hand, are ideally vegan, the monks/nuns of which going further, sometimes into fruitarianism, sometimes just refusing to eat. Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism are all very closely linked, something like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism; all coming from the same place, being different interpretations of the same basic beliefs. That's my take, anyway, and now I'm rambling. Canæn 08:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Veganism is indirectly implied by the requirement that Hindus should only eat satvic foods. Since cows are not treated to Hindu standards in western society, most if not all dairy products are unsuitable for Hindus. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satvic Modern days Hindus, like myself, have incorporated veganism as an extension of the philosophy of ahinsa (non-violence).

[edit] Vitamin B12

I have removed the sentence "It must be pointed out that vitamin B12, in a form usable by humans, only occurs in animals." which was added today. Since B12 is available in fortified foods and in (vegan) tablet form, the statement clearly is not true. It would be more accurate to say that plants do not contain B12, but in my view the article already made this clear.--Michig 12:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is untrue that B12 only occurs in animals. It is found (unreliably) on organicaly grown vegetables, where it is produced by bacteria. These bacteria are also the source of commercial B12. Vitamin B12 article. I also read somewhere that Granny-Smith apples contain B12 (german research) --Mig77^(t) 15:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read, plants themselves don't contain B12, but it can be found in traces in the dirt that may still be left on some vegetables if they are not washed too thoroughly. Either way, the statement that was added today (and has now been re-added) is wrong and should be removed.--Michig 15:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the statement since it is wrong, and directed the user to this page. Kellen ^T 17:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Since B12 is available in fortified foods and in (vegan) tablet form." Um, where exactly are you thinking that B12 is coming from? It's either coming from animal products, or human feces, both of which aren't vegan. Bacteria are not plants. - MSTCrow 21:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your (MSTCrow) original argument was that B12 only occurs in animals. Since you are now arguing that bacteria are not plants (duh) (I notice that you altered your previous comment on this page), does this mean that you now admit that you were wrong? Or are you just trolling?--Michig 22:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice you are a newer user. You might want to take a look at the Wikipedia Policy regarding personal attacks and general civility. - MSTCrow 23:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The commercial source for the B12 found in vegetarian supplements, fortified foods, etc is bacteria. Consuming bacteria or the product of bacteria is not a concern for vegans.

Streptomyces griseus, a bacterium once thought to be a yeast, was the commercial source of vitamin B12 for many years.8,9 The bacteria Propionibacterium shermanii and Pseudomonas denitrificans have now replaced S. griseus.10 At least one company, Rhone Poulenc Biochimie of France, is using a genetically engineered microorganism to produce B12.11 [8]

Kellen ^T 09:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that the statement "vitamin B12, in a form usable by humans, only occurs in animals" is false, and seriously misleading (it suggests that being truly vegan is impossible). Perhaps there is a misconception here that bacteria, if they are not plants, are necessarily animals. Actually, bacteria are neither plants nor animals. David Olivier 07:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section stating that B-12 is synthesized in the colons of humans and other animals. While it is true, it is misleading in the extreme. We can dispense with the "other animals", as it is not pertinant to the discussion (unless vegans will eat cow poo ;). As for humans, yes, bacteria in the colon do produce B12, which then goes in the toilet -- your body does NOT absorb any of it. One study had vegans consuming capsules containing the B12 extracted from their own stools, which worked, but is, in my POV, quite gross. I'm guessing they were college students... :) Mdbrownmsw 17:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Studies suggest and or found and shown?

Hello Skinwalker, do you have a cite for your claim? Countless studies refer to findings using both "found, suggest and show".show,shown,shown,found,found,suggest and found. Even this: Thousands of scientific studies document this. The Dr. is not referring to comparison study, interesting language.--Scribner 00:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Equating correlation with causation is a common logical fallacy, unfortunately even in scientific papers. Also, some of the papers you cite (the penguin one especially) are not correlational, but tie specific microDNA patterns with microevolution in penguins. As for a cite, I'd start here. Correlational studies are useful in suggesting further avenues of research, but are not conclusive in demonstrating causation.

As a compromise, I suggest we use the language "strongly suggest" or "strongly correlate" (since the study DOES suggest a statistically strong correlation). Language like "proves" or "overwhelmingly shows" is inapplicable to correlational studies since it implies a causal relationship and therefore misrepresents the study in question. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for advising the compromise and making the edit. Cheers,--Scribner 03:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health criticism section

Tagged "disputed" because of the three claims in the first paragragh I read were pov, all three claims are false. I haven't checked the entire section, yet. I checked this paragragh at random. Don't remove the tag until a check is done. Here's the paragraph:

"Related studies note the importance of early recognition of significant maternal vitamin B12 deficiency during pregnancy and lactation in vegetarians is emphasized so that appropriate supplementation can be given and irreversible neurologic damage in the infant prevented.[37] Critics also point to studies which show that a Vegetarian diet is linked to genital defects.[38] They also cite that a vegan diet carries an increased risk of hemorrhagic stroke.[39]"

Two sentences are lies, one, the last is ridiculous misrepresentation.--Scribner 04:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Read the first paragraph (checking cites), this section is not factual, is pov and contradicts itself.--Scribner 05:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What happened?

I don't recall when the last time I was on this article was, but god damn folks, what happened? The article at least used to look half-way decent. Now it's so filled with tags and prose (unwikified, unsourced pov nonsense) that I don't know what they hell's been going on. The hell of it all is, most of the text in the top half seems to be precisely the same. I don't mean to just complain, but I don't want to get myself too-far into this article again. Nothing good came out of it last time was. That said, is there anything small that I can do to help? Give me a message if y'all ever need an outside voice on it; I know how helpful that can be sometimes. Two-three people get so wrapped up in arguing over an article, they forget everything else, and that's no good. It almost seems like this article could be better if it were entirely re-written, from the ground-up. Canæn 08:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Length; Nutrition

It looks to me like the two big problems with length are the Nutrition section (which is more sepcific than the main article Vegan nutrition, and two widely-unsourced & unwikified sections, Criticism & Controversy and "Levels of Adherance". Both of these sections at least need to be organized better.

I'm off for tonight, but I'd suggest moving the bulk (meaning all of the subsections) of the Vegan Nutrition section over to their main article, and having at most a one-sentence mention of each vitamin/mineral/chemical/whatever. What do others thing of the nutrition plan? Canæn 08:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on both counts.--Scribner 16:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already moved the nutrition section as it has been talked about for a long time. It will need some merging on Vegan nutrition. Go help. Kellen ^T 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Kudos, Kellen! I'm sorry for coming off like that; I haven't bothered to read any of the talk, as I've had bad experiences arguing over this article time and time again. I will now, though, as I think I might end up getting more involved in the article again. I remember you coming in as quite a sound editor, just before I left this article; I'm glad to see you're still here. I'll try to help out at the Vegan nutrition article, though I must admit I don't know much about it. My health has stayed quite good without paying attention close attention to nutrition. Anyway, this is getting off-topic.

I didn't check the edit history, but a great thank you goes out to whoever implemented these ideas! Canæn 08:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last line in the study

"In conclusion, an inhibitory effect of SAH on whole-genome methylation was found, but from our data no interaction between vegetarian lifestyle and DNA methylation could be determined.

This is another B12 deficiency study. The study does NOT support the section, not at all.--Scribner 16:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops; you're correct. The section quotes the hypothesis of the researchers in a way that makes it sound like it is their conclusion. Their conclusion is actually ... inconclusive. I'll remove the section as it is unsupported. Kellen ^T 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What Dr. Fuhrman said:

OK, Idleguy, you cherry-picked this: "low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke."

• NOTE: Here's the whole paragraph:

"Although a low-saturated-fat vegan diet may markedly reduce risk for coronary heart disease, diabetes, and many common cancers, the real Achilles heel of the low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke. Apparently the atherosclerotic (plaque building) process that creates a local vascular environment favorable to coronary thrombosis (clot) and intravascular embolism (traveling clot) may be protecting the fragile blood vessels in the brain from rupture under years of stress from high blood pressure. Admittedly, hemorrhagic stroke is a very small percentage of the deaths in modern countries. It still is worth noting that if strict vegetarians are to have the potential to maximize their lifespan, it is even more important they avoid a high salt intake because salt intake increases blood pressure. Almost all of the soy based meat analogues and many other health food store (vegan) products are exceptionally high in sodium."[9]

• Dr. Fuhrman is saying, watch your sodium intake, right?--Scribner 05:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read sources twice before jumping to underline statements that are aimed to resolve the problem? "the real Achilles heel of the low-fat vegan diet is the increased risk of hemorrhagic (vessel rupture leading to bleeding) stroke." Does that make it clear? The issue first, then the cure. You jumped into the cure stating low salt intake before learning the problem. Not dissimilar to someone mentioning the prognosis before the diagnosis.

Additionally large swathes of information related to difficulty section have been pruned (probably to keep things short) but it now reveals a half baked difficulty section even though much of what originally existed a couple of days back were properly sourced or cited (internal links with sources in Wikipedia articles). If the bulk of it isn't restored here, then atleast a new article for the statements must be created. Simply deleting information that doesn't suit one person isn't the way to go about it. Idleguy 06:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is about sodium in the Vegan diet, specifically Vegan products. The author is warning Vegans to watch their sodium intake, and he explains why. A compromise is to include the truth.--Scribner 07:01, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Does truth involve deleting sourced statements and calling them as pov. btw, look at Wikipedia:Verifiability official policy. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Given that the source states that high sodium diet (as in soy porotien) etc. and "less animal products" is associated hemorrhagic stroke, it was not right to remove them outright. Idleguy 07:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy protein has zero sodium. Regarding the edits that were false, take it to medcab. FYI, your "study" doesn't exsist, it's one doctor's claim.--Scribner 08:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, another Wikipedia policy talks about Good Faith. That means that we, as editors, should contirbute to Wikipedia in Good Faith. I consider that to mean, among other things, not including information which we know to be false, even if we can provide a link to someone telling the lie. I'm not saying that your information is neccessarily wrong, because I haven't read it. This is just a friendly reminder. Canæn 08:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Soy protein was just an example given by me; it's not in the citation which merely mentions soy based foods. I've reworded to Dr. Fuhrman who gave that statement. It was introduced in good faith btw. The source is reliable. Infact Scribner has gone and deleted ifnormation on genital defects hosted on the BBC! Idleguy 08:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy recognizes that there is rarely 100% consensus on a given topic, and expects editors to go with the nearly-universal expert view about a position when one exists. In cases where a minority view has sufficient expert proponents it can be presented as well, **as a minority view**. It is certainly a mistake to fail to qualify it as such. Fuhrman's opinion about vegan diets leading to stroke is just that -- opinion. He cites no source. One doctor's opinion is insufficient to merit inclusion in an article. If his opinion is shared by many other experts, then certainly those positions will be easy to find and then we report that scientific consensus as such. But if such support does not exist, then Fuhrman's lone opinion has no place in this article. As such I will remove it. I will examine the pesticide claim as well, applying the same standard, and may remove it too for the same reason. -MichaelBluejay 09:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I notice that Fuhrman is using that site to sell his books. Do we have a policy regarding commercial sources? Canæn 04:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Self-published sources violate WP:RS, here. He may meet the except to the rule, but it's still a sodium issue, as with any diet.--Scribner 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Now I've read through the paragraph. I completely agree it is a sodium issue; This is a misquote/misleading quote, taken out of context. Canæn 09:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

He's saying "watch your sodium intake" because as a vegan/vegetarian you've created an environment in your body where an increased sodium intake can do more damage (than if you have plaque buildup in your blood vessels, which provides greater protection against high blood pressure). This is a valid thing to note. Kellen ^T 11:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. As I said: "The paragraph is about sodium in the Vegan diet, specifically Vegan products. The author is warning Vegans to watch their sodium intake, and he explains why. A compromise is to include the truth."--Scribner 02:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical criticism

Some scientists dispute the assumption that a vegan lifestyle prevents unnecessary death of animals. Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, claims that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production.[29] Gaverick Matheny wrote a rebuttal in which he claims that Davis' reasoning contains several major flaws, including the notion that vegans generally eat at a lower trophic level.

Davis does not seem to be disputing that vegan lifestyles prevents unnecessary death of animals. Maybe this wording is just misleading. To me, it looks more like Davis is saying that even though Dietary Veganism may lead toward the prevention of some death, it does not address the fact that industrialized crop production kills animals and insects as well. What do you all think?

According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, it is "unethical" to put children on a vegan diet in some cases since it could harm their development.[31] Later, the same scientist added that "vegan diets were unethical unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods."

Is it really neccessary to have two different quotes? It looks like the first quote is half of a thought, and the second quote is a full thought. Could we not rephrase it to be:

According to one scientist of the US Agricultural Research Service, "vegan diets were unethical unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods."

I don't have the page in front of me, but something along those lines. What do you all think? Canæn 08:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Davis is asserting that a vegan diet leads to more unnecessary death than a nonvegan diet insofar as it primarily relies upon industrialized agriculture. You can read the article here (on FreeRepublic, so beware the trolling and idiocy). As for your second point; yeah we should combine those bits -- the scientist in question specified that he originally made a statement with the whole "unless" clause, but that it was left out by a sensationalist reporter. Kellen ^T 10:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. That makes more sense, even if I don't agree that Veganism must rely on industrial agrciulture. One step closer to understanding these citations, Canæn 04:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be citing something from that site? All those comments at the bottom make the thing sound like a joke. It looks like a blog. Canæn 04:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

FR is a well known "conservative" blog/news/community site. No, we probably shouldn't link there. Kellen ^T 11:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] birth defects issue

I would like to bring this to everyone's attention. User:Scribner is accusing me for mentioning his name in the edit summary. My edit summary was "rm tag inserted by Scribner. See Wikipedia:Disputed statement. sourced statements citing studies aren't dubious." I hardly find any personal attacks there. If using one's username in edit summary if it is considered as personal attacks then any summaries like "rv edits by User:xyz to version by User:123" would also be considered as an attack.

I merely used his username since I wanted to point out the editor who added that tag. Further I have gone and added another journal as a source for the genital/birth defect issue. I find that the said user is taking this personally and trying to start a personal attack for edits. If the "Dr. Fuhrman" issue is controversial, I have no issues that until a few others have a source on the link between haemmorhage and vegetarianims is proved, it need not be readded. But to brand someone as "by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic." is a blatant attempt to humiliate someone. Idleguy 07:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears first the user contacts me to "warn" about launching personal attacks when it is clear from edit summaries i haven't. Then when i reply in the user's talk page, hinting that his comments aren't civil, he deletes the messages, then asks me not to respond in his talk page and to keep all communication in the article talk page. Then, why bother coming to my talk page in the first place? If he didn't wish to initiate a dialogue via user talk pages, the user should have come here first, instead of my talk page. Idleguy 08:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, it appears that you are developing personal issues with Scribner that need to be worked out. If you would like, I will volunteer my services as a mediator, and we can talk about any personal issues on another page. I would be happy to create a subpage in my own userspace, perhaps at User talk:Canaen/Conflict resolution/Idleguy-Scribner. Otherwise, I trust that you and scribner can work your problems out on your own, or through another source. In either case, this is not the place to voice whatever your concerns over Scribner may be. Please cease these comments, as they are neither contructive to the article, or conducive to fostering good faith. Thanks, Canæn 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Scribner is misusing the dubious tag. The fact of the matter is that you have cited two different sources for the statement. If he wants to propose another, clearer wording, he may, but the statement as you wrote it was correct. Kellen ^T 11:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

A well cited study presented in a false or misleading manner is dubious. The "...haemmorhage and vegetarianims...[sic]" was neither a study, nor was it correct as a stand alone comment. That's history.

I also tagged this study with a "dubious" tag. An editor misread the study and posted exactly what the study disproved, that a Vagan diet causes cancer and heart disease. That's a large error, I should have deleted it on sight, to hell with a dubious tag.--Scribner 01:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pesticides, Chemicals, Industrial Agriculture

Hi everyone. I think that we should be very clear about claims we make, and qualify all of them. Let's get one thing clear: A Vegetable is indeed vegetarian, but it is nto a specifically vegetarian food. Most humans, being omnivores, eat vegetables. When we make claims about vegetables grown as part of modern industrial agriculture which makes use of pesticides, we should be clear that we are talking about vegetables which are grown with modern industrial agricultural techniques including the use of pesticides and other chemicals.

Omnivores consume the same fruit and vegetables, and suffer from the same health concerns. The problem here is with spraying pesticides on the crop, not with vegetarianism. For example:

A study has shown that boys born to vegetarian mothers were more likely to suffer from a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. The study implicates Pesticide residue or possibly naturally occurring chemicals called phytoestrogens, found in vegetarian foods, especially soya as the cause.

Here, the point is that pesticide residue and phytoestrogens can be dangerous if consumed in large amounts. If we insist on using this source, perhaps we could say:

A study has shown that, when mothers consume large amounts of pesticide residue and/or phytoestrogens may be more likely to have children with a specific genital defect, called hypospadias. Phytoestrogens are commonly found in soya, which is commonly found in meat analogs such as tofu.

If not that exact wording, that idea. The point of the BBC article, is:

They believe that a vegetarian diet alone is unlikely to cause hypospadias. But they think vegetarians are probably eating more of something that is to blame - soya is a suspect.[10]

The entire Criticisms & controversy section is riddled with misleading facts like this, impropperly qualified, if at all, and quotes taken out of context. I fear I shall have to go through each one individually. Canæn 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Health & Quoting sources

All of the health claims made in the criticism section, such as:

The US Food and Drug Administration in its report states that vegetarian women of childbearing age have an increased chance of menstrual irregularities, and that vegetarians are the risk of not consuming enough micronutrients like copper, iron and zinc in their diet.

should be qualified, to make clear that the risk factor only comes into play when said vegetarian women do not obtain adequate nutrients. Otherwise, we are being misleading, and doing readers a disservice. And if we are going to make many claims like this, we must qualify every one. Otherwise we run the risk of misquoting, and misleading. When we quote sources, we must be sure to preserve the context which the quote was originally in. Canæn 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Africa Study

I'm questioning a source here, again. The National Cattleman's Beef Association's sponsored African study, referenced in the Health crticisms section. Should we really be presenting information from such an obviously partisan organization? Granted they didn't conduct the study themselves, but they were a major financial backer, and influenced the results. Excuse me for questioning aspects of the article more than I am actively contributing to it. I just don't usually see articles with this much criticism. I think that Wikipedia articles are meant to present a neutral view of an article, not volleys back and forth. Canæn 08:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Another B12 study. Slam dunk for the beef industry. The dairy industry is guilty too.--Scribner 08:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, indeed. I just feel guilty, as an editor at Wikipedia, spreading the claims made by such a dubious source. I mean, what they're saying is that starving African children, when fed adequate amounts of food, show signs of improvement in their health. To present that as saying that Meat & Dairy improve health is absolutely ludicrous and unscientific. It just makes our article look bad, even if we do counter the claim with further counter-criticism. Canæn 08:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, this is a well-known, well-publicised study. The author works for the UC Davis and the Agricultural Research Service, part of US Department of Agriculture. That the study was partially funded by the Cattleman's association is fine to mention, but the research is fine. Kellen ^T 11:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it's well-known, and well-publicised. Hell, I've heard about it (though that doesn't make the research fine in my book, I won't press the matter). I just don't really see how relevent it is to Veganism. From what I've read about it, they basically took starving african children living in a rural community, and started feeding them large amounts of food. I haven't read the actual study itself, though. Just secondary sources on it. But if they're accurate, then this criticism would be much better as a criticism of starvation, or malnourishment. Have you read the study, or could you give more insight? Canæn 06:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's relevant (a) because it's a B12 study and vegans are notoriously low in B12, (b) the author made vegan-specific criticisms which (c) vegans and vegan organizations publicly criticised. We're here to represent the views surrounding veganism, not judge validity of the research itself. Kellen ^T 10:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources policy: Self-published articles

Reposted from Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-publishedsources

[edit] Policy

A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within their field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own name or known pen-name and not anonymously.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

Reports by anonymous individuals, or those without a track record of publication to judge their reliability, do not warrant citation at all, until such time as it is clear that the report has gained cachet, in which case it can be noted as a POV.

[edit] Analysis and application

I believe we may have many references which should not be in the article. I have not read through all of our 40-50-some-odd references. I have seen a few. I'd like to hear what others have to say. The following may not be reliable sources, based on the above policy.

• The Davis least-harm-principle interpretation
• The Fuhrman quotes; this may already be taken care of
• ^ Robert I-San Lin. Nutritional Requirements of Vegetarians. Retrieved on 2006-10-31.

The Davis criticism is interesting and valid and widely cited (as in the Time article in the introduction). The stuff relating to Fuhrman is still applicable in my opinion -- the guy's a nutritionist FFS -- but the wording should probably describe the situation more thoroughly . As for I-San Lin; I'm indifferent to the actual source but the sentence the citation supports could use some better citations. Kellen ^T 11:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] In theory or in practice?

This post is only to resolve a confusion in the lead para and not to be mistaken as singling out/attacking anyone. In this edit, User:Kellen` removed "almost all" stating that in theory they commit to abstaining from all of them. But the article line begins with "In practice, a vegan..." So if the abstention is in theory, the the article ought to reflect that, or if it is in practice, then "almost all" should be readded. Idleguy 12:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, you're right about that being confusing and I hadn't considered the "in practice" clause at the beginning. The "in practice" clause, to my mind, refers to the "practice" of the "philosophy and lifestyle" of veganism; commiting to abstain from all animal products. Where the (semantic) problem comes in is that one could read "practice" as "realistic ability to adhere to the philosophy" in which case your addition of "almost all" make sense. I think every vegan implicitly or explicitly accepts that they can't do away 100% with animal products (since many ingredients in many, many things are unlabelled, ingredients have multiple sources, etc), but the point of the sentence is to establish how adherence to the philosophy of veganism manifests in real life; that is attempted avoidance of all animal products. All that said, perhaps there is a better way to phrase the intro that avoids both of these problems: removing the "in practice" bit. This information is included later in the Definition section; the UKVS definition basically spells out what you are trying to express. Kellen ^T 16:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That is, the "theory" is "live without harm to animals", the "practice" is avoiding animal products. Convoluted! Kellen ^T 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually added in that "in practice" bit, because of a similar argument awhile back. It boils down to the philosophy and belief that we should be without animal exploitation, and the practice which is that we avoid animal products. Most Vegans, from a western-centric view, don't go as far as Jains, many of whom wear masks so as not to inhale micro-organisms, sweep the ground in front of them before taking a step so as not to crush anything, and some ever starve themselves to death (though this is quite rare), to avoid consuming because they see so much wrong in just living and consuming. Most vegans, to retain their sanity and their comfy lifestyles, draw a line at what they consume; what they buy at the grocery store. That's sort of what the in-practice part refers to. Others do go further, but that's not the main body of Veganism. Canæn 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Idleguy, the problem with adding "almost all" is that Vegans do not attempt to avoid "almost all" products of animal exploitation. The point of veganism (excluding the health nut reasons) is to stop contributing to industries which exploit animals, and to attempt to bring those industries and practices to a hault. The point is not to come close to stopping animal exploitation. Maybe you could add a line in the criticism section, mentioning that very few vegans stop contributing to animal exploitation entirely, or that very few vegans use absolutely no animal products. However, it remains that the point of veganism, which is what should be presented in the introduction, is to achieve the goal of doing away with animal exploitation, not simply coming close. "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades," so they say. Canæn 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should I attempt to rectify the ambiguity of the sentence by removing "in practice" or are there better suggestions for phrasing? Kellen ^T 16:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Food Standards Agency Report

User:Mdbrownmsw and I appear to be reading the same information in totally different ways.

My version:

Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Of that 5%, 29% said they avoided "all animal products."<ref name="Food Standards Agency"/>

Mdbrownmsw's:

Also in 2002, the UK Food Standards Agency reported that 5% of respondents self-identified as vegetarian or vegan. Though 29% of that 5% said they avoided "all animal products" only 5% reported avoiding dairy. Based on these figures, approximately 0.25% or less of the UK population follow a vegan diet.<ref name="Food Standards Agency">{{cite web| url = http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ndnsprintedreport.pdf| title = National Diet and Nutrition Survey| accessdate = 2006-11-06| work = Food Standards Agency}}</ref> <!-- See page 23, 95% said they ate dairy, so, at most, 5% of 5% (0.25%) are vegans. -->

Besides the fact that he has introduced a second citaiton which appears earlier in the article, I assert that he is incorrectly reading the data. Page 23 of the report has a table with the following:

Table 2.9: Types of food avoided by respondents who said they were vegetarian or vegan

Those who said they were vegetarian or vegan	Percentages
Types of food avoided	all
Red meat	100
White meat	92
Fish	48
Eggs	21
Milk	5
Other dairy products (e.g. butter/cheese)	10
All animal products	29
Other	7
Base, number of vegetarian or vegan respondents*	106

Note: * Percentages add to more than 100 as some respondents reported avoiding more than one type of food.

Mdbrownmsw's edits reflect (I think) a reading of this table as saying "only 5 percent avoided milk" and therefore "95 percent are not vegan." I believe he has mis-read the data to be exclusive when it is actually inclusive, and provides no additional information about those not explicitly included in each group. That is; some of the 29 percent who marked that they "avoid all animal products" may also have marked that they avoid red and white meat, eggs, dairy, etc or they might have only marked that they avoided all animal products.

I would like some other readings of this data since it makes a significant difference in the possible percentage of vegans. Kellen ^T 13:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your version also includes this:

Based on these figures, approximately 1.45% or less of the UK population follow a vegan diet.

In order for your reading to make sense, the 29% reporting that they avoid "all animal products" must be skipping the milk, other dairy, and eggs when told to select all that apply. In other words, you believe that at least 24 of 29 (over 80%) of the purported vegans reported avoiding red meat, but felt that reporting avoiding "all animal products" meant they did not need to report avoiding milk. You believe a significant number did this for all three categories, but NONE made this mistake for red meat.

My reading requires that they interpret "all animal products" to mean all food made from animals.

Your reading has a monumental difference in the % of vegetarians who are vegans in the UK vs the US 29% vs 5%.

My reading says its about 5% in both countries.

Mdbrownmsw 14:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Another FSA source, says there are 3.5 million vegetarians and 0.25 million vegans in the UK. This gives us a figure of roughly 6.6% of vegetarians being vegans (0.25/3.75) -- much closed to 5% than 29%.

Mdbrownmsw 14:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I went and read the survey given, and you are right that it says to "code all that apply." How do we account for the 29% of people that coded that they avoided "all animal products"? Ignorant vegetarians? Kellen ^T 14:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, vague wording. The 29%, I guess, had a different understanding of "animal products".

Mdbrownmsw 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Carl Lewis and Veganism

I went through the cite given, i.e. this one. He actually says he went vegan in 1990 and not prior to the world record breaking Olympics in 1988 seoul. and his "best year" came as he says later in the article 1991. Maybe he personally thought it was his best year but actually he had performed better in 84 and 88 olympics when he wasn't vegan, atleast not according to what he says. And there have also been accusations of his drug abuse. See Carl_Lewis#Drug_accusations so comparing him with Ben Jonson is also pointless. So i've reworded it to what is actually in the source. Idleguy 19:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there are a few points that are unclear with regards to Carl Lewis, but the statement that he had his best year after becoming vegan is backed up by his performances in 1991, for example, his best 100 m time was 9.86 s and his best long jump was 8.87 m, w 8.91 m, both in 1991 after becoming vegan. So the 1988 Olympic final was not his best performance. Ben Johnson was also striped of his win in that race, Lewis has never been striped of any medals as it was fairly clear he had simply taken a normal over the counter remedy. It is relevant to mention Johnson as Lewis was the fastest man in the world after Johnson was found to have been cheating. The article on him calls 1991 his best year, so it seems this is generally considered fact not simply how Lewis 'feels'. - Solar 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eco-Eating

Since the link apparently is considered spam, here are more for cleanup, if anyone is so inclined: Linksearch: *.brook.com/veg/ --Femto 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC), Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam

Thanks, I've removed them. Kellen ^T 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous Vegans

Wouldn't it make sense to consolidate the bare-bones "List of Vegans" article into this main page and re-title the section "Famous Vegans" or "Notable Vegans"? I realize space is a consideration, but a list of notable adherents is usually pretty standard on pages dealing with a particular philosophy or lifestyle. Atlantawiki 01:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supplements

I have added a source (Vegan Society) for the statement that supplements are recommended for vegans. I removed the section stating that supplements are recommended for everyone, vegan and non-vegan alike, because the source cited did not state that IN RELATION TO VEGANS. Per WP:OR "the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say". Mdbrownmsw 15:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction tag removed

to Mdbrownmsw: i removed the contradiction tag for a couple of reasons:

1. there was no explanation on the talk page (here) explaining the nature of the contradiciton with Vegan nutrition. without at least some indication of where you find the contradiction to be, how can wikipedians fix it? if you feel the need to re-insert the contradiction tag, please be specific on the nature of the problem. or, better yet, fix it!
2. the whole vegan nutrition page is a mess to begin with! i wouldn't be surprised if it contradicted itself!

thanks! frymaster 07:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ischemic heart disease

I have removed the following: "The evidence is overwhelming that vegetarians have lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease, and that non-meat eating reduces all-cause mortality by 50%.[20]"

Actually, the source cited (which is not "overwhelming evidence", nor does it claim such evidence exists) says, in reviewing previous results:

"it was suggested that the exclusion of meat from the diet might result in a 15–25% reduction in risk for ischemic heart disease."

Then, it's study results: "These large reductions in the apparent effect of diet group may be because the healthy volunteer effect was more pronounced in the vegetarian subjects, who were likely to have been more strongly motivated and, therefore, generally healthier than the nonvegetarian subjects at recruitment. It is also likely that there was some crossover among diet groups during the first 5 y of the study, which would dilute the apparent benefits of a meatless diet."

Finally, this article is about veganism, not vegetarianism. The study found NO IMPACT WHATSOEVER accross several mortality rates for fish eaters, who are, of course, not vegans. Mdbrownmsw 19:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Article

This article is great. It perfectly sums up what vegans stand for and the downsides to this lifestyle choice. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vegen8tor (talk • contribs) 21:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] template for deletion

Editors may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 December 8#Template:Pet Species. Please keep the discussion to the encyclopedic merits of the template, not ideology. — coelacan talk — 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UN report on livestock & environment

This report from the UN might be of interest here, as well as at Environmental vegetarianism. It's about the UN's conclusions on the environmental impact of livestock. Canæn 02:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation templates

I'd like to encourage the regular editors of this page to please always use an appropriate citation template when adding references. This is usually {{cite journal}} or {{cite web}}. Most of the article is properly cited in this fashion and it would be nice (structurally, visually and functionally) to have it consistent. Kellen ^T 18:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Levels

I was looking for more information on the different levels of veganism, I was wondering if someone who knew about the subject could add a section on what each level means.JW 00:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there really levels? There's that joke from the Simpsons where a guy says he's a level five vegan - he doesn't eat anything that casts a shadow, but I don't think that joke is based in any real levels of being vegan. The only think I'm aware of is that some vegans are okay with eating honey, while others are not. The diet is fairly straightforward. Sparsefarce 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole "levels" thing stems from what different Vegans know. Ideally, Veganism is the abstention from any and products of animal exploitation. Things like Meat, Milk, and Eggs are real obvious animal products, but things like Refined Cane Sugar, Condoms, and Molasses are quite a bit less obvious. It takes a level of experience (either through research or friends or whatever) to learn of those latter three and other more obscure animal products. As well, some Vegans do voluntarily eat things like Honey, and Refined Cane Sugar, conscious of the fact that they are products of animal exploitation, or possibly disagreeing as to whether all commercial animal products are also products of exploitation (i.e., whether or not getting Honey from Bees is cruel or not). Canæn 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke and does not deserve inclusion in the article. Kellen ^T 10:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)