Talk:Veganism/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Veganism and anorexia

You are quite right, however, that some people use veganism to hide anorexia nervosa (popularly known as anorexia).
The consequences of veganism on growth and health in adulthood still poorly understood but, logically, are likely to be greater than in lacto-ovo-vegetarians. Vegan adolescents and there parents must be informed of the deficiency-related risks and monitored on a regular basis.
Comparisons were made between two groups of anorectic patients, 'non-white' and 'white' ... and practice veganism slightly more commonly; ...
From then on, i changed my vegetarian diet to a strict Vegan diet and started running and running. Soon, bullimia wasnt enough for me, I wasnt losing enough weight, so Ana became my new friend. I am only a new Ana recruit. and After suffering from binge-eating disorder and weighing as much as 239 pounds, I easily and very successfully have switched to anorexia. I started with the McDougal diest -- these prepackaged meals, vegan meals, that you just add boiling water to...
Q : How can I hide my anorexia from my parents? ... Is there some other, more acceptable way to control your food? Like becoming a vegetarian or vegan? That way the rules you set won't look like anorexia as much, and it's easier to eat mostly low-calorie things like vegetables without drawing too much attention. And a plateful of plain steamed veggies has fewer calories than, say, a few bites of pizza. Stealthorexia.

While it seems there is no link demonstrated by scientific study between veganism and anorexia, it appears that some pro-ana internet communities do support it as a method of "hiding" anorexia. Note: I still don't care if anorexia is mentioned or not in the article as my previous vote suggests. Just thought the information should be there... - FrancisTyers 00:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

There are millions of cases of anorexia and eating disorders. Outside of one mothers concern of eating disorder because of vegetarianism, yes vegans tend to be less hefty than the average obese individual in the first world, hmm. Wikipedia is under attack by the media right now for having a lower standard for accuracy than other sources. Let us not maintain that myth. Nidara 19:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, check this, who cares about some U.S. politician when we have "props" from Nature! :) - FrancisTyers 19:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent article to point out Francis, props to you. Subversion is key on correct info. Britannica had on average three incorrect facts whereas Wikipedia had four. Let's keep it going. Nidara 21:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not getting involved in this debate suffice to say that i've been vegan for 21 years now, and have actually come accross very few of the 'painfully thin' vegans of steroetype- if you look at my user page you will see that I'm hardly skin and bones! I'd never even heard of the phenomena of anorexic vegans until I saw this debate! There is actaully a 'Vegan slimmers' yahoo elist for those vegans who'd like to shed a few pounds (I'm on it, for all the good its ever done me!)! If there is going to be stuff on vegan anorexics in this article how about a counter-paragraph on 'pie-eating' vegans like myself and many others I know... or better still why not leave it out totally- there are probably some vegans with eating disorders, but there are many omnivores with eating disorders as well... quercus robur 19:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As you might expect, I will get involved. And I add my direct experience of 20 years involvement in veganism as well. It has no validity and should be entirely left out.
Putting aside the vegan pie-eatstas point of view, amongst whom I count myself, would - for an example - a con-artist dressing up as a police officer be comsidered as exampe of police officer or would an alcoholic that called themselves a born-again Christian to mask their alcoholism be a true example of what a Christian is - or would they still be an alcoholic?
The words the social scientists here are using is " psuedo " or " self-reported ". That is to say, those writing the studies are making a differention between "psuedo " or " self-reported " and ' actual ' vegans. Even those vicitims of the disorder are making it quite clear in their writing that they are looking for masks for their anorexia not to become actual vegans.
Where you lack sound scientific data from reliable sources - and here you most certainly do - you have to look at the intent of these individuals. They are anorexics trying to hide behind something else not ' become ' vegans.
It has to stay out until you present basic statistics to show the spread of body mass / weight amongst vegans. These at least will be available.
  • I think you will find anorexia is under represented vegans because we are largely a very healthy lot. If you have to post it somewhere post it under anorexia because it is nor representative of veganism.

195.82.106.14 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker editing other user's discussion page !!!! In this case Canaen's

Personal attack by 195.82.106.78 removed.

Please stop spamming the talk page. Man this is like a crapflood. If you have a complaint, take it throught the proper channels. --preceeding unsigned comment by FrancisTyers
What? MacDonald of Clan Ranald? Lord Huntly, off with his head! Canaen 08:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
He's been blocked. And I plan on blocking any others in that IP range as sockpuppets. Going to put a notice on ANI. We gave him/her plenty of chances. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 00:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know Lord Huntly kept a cat... ;)Canaen 23:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

anorexia in pseudovegetarians

This paragraph is marked for removal to vegetarian or semi-vegetarian. Nidara 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms have also focused on the prevalence of eating disorders within the vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders often predate the adoption of a vegan/vegetarian diet (O'Connor et al., Medical Journal of Australia, 1987;147(11-12):540-2). Anorexics, for example, often find the excuse of "veganism" an attractive cover for their pre-existing eating disorder. Studies of college women show that a significantly higher proportion of women who do not consume animal protein than those who do are likely to display distorted eating attitudes and beliefs [1]. Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices [2].

I am going to rephrase this content and reinsert it, with a link to Vegetarianism. The references that FrancisTyer and I found show that:
  • Clinical nutritionists view veganism in adolescent women as a risk factor for anorexia.
  • Pro-ana communities advocate a vegan diet as a cover for anorexia.
  • Vegan and vegetarian teenagers have a high occurrence of unhealthy weight control practices.

These are vegan-specific references that belong on this page. In light of RFC responders suggesting that it's OK if it has references, I'm adding it back in. I'll post a draft later today that we can talk about. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's my proposed draft:
"There is some concern over the incidence of vegan and vegetarian communities. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan or vegetarian diet [3]. However, pro-ana communities advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [4] [5], and nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[6] Also, self-reported teenage vegans and vegetarians are more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies and to be involved in both healthy and unhealthy weight control practices [7]."
This eliminates the "pseudovegetarian" reference and adds FrancisTyers' refs about pro-ana and nutritionists. Does anyone other than Nidara take issue with inserting this paragraph under health criticisms? Cheers, Skinwalker 17:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd recommend that if you were to include this, you only use sources that mention veganism or self-reported veganism. [8] does not mention veganism at all and so shouldn't be on the veganism article. I haven't checked the others. - FrancisTyers 17:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Good point. New draft, with that ref chopped out and some copyediting:
"There is some concern over the incidence of eating disorders among young women who report a vegan diet. However, though there appears to be correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan or vegetarian diet [9]. However, pro-ana communities advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [10] [11], and nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[12]"
The first ref IS the "pseudovegetarian" reference, but it states that meat avoidance occurs after the onset of eating disorders in all but 6% of cases, so I am including it to emphasize that veganism does not cause eating disorders. Cheers, Skinwalker 17:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Still I don't think you're going to be able to get it in. Stick to what the sources state.
Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a risk factor for anorexia among young women.[13] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [14] [15].
I think thats about as far as the sources go. Having said that, I'm sure if you looked hard enough you could find some proper references in journals. Did you see my one from NIH above? Basically I think that the above paragraph is as far as you're going to be able to go without providing a real reference. To be honest I think the whole article should be scientifically referenced. - FrancisTyers 18:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Here's an article[16] that quotes a pro-vegetarian nutritionist as saying:
"(T)he large majority of vegetarian or vegan anorexics and bulimics chose this eating pattern after the onset of their disease"
I think this justifies the sentence about cause vs. correlation, since it specifies vegan anorexics. The article is also a good resource for discriminating between healthy and unhealthy vegan eating habits.
I'm also concerned that we shouldn't dismiss a reference just because it refers to vegetarians, and not vegans. As I stated above, vegans restrict themselves to fewer food options than vegetarians. Veganism can therefore be viewed as a subset of vegetarianism. What's your opinion? Is there anything fundamentally different about a vegan diet that sets it apart from a vegetarian diet, other than the removal of all animal-derived ingredients? Cheers, Skinwalker 19:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree, this article should only use sources which specifically refer to vegans and veganism, not to vegetarianism or other supersets. After all, vegetarian is a subset of a non-restrictive diet. This doesn't just go for the anorexia, but any issue where we need sources. Lets make this page specifically about veganism and keep the vegetarian stuff to vegetarianism. I also think we should look at the quality of sources for this page. Nidara has a point when [s]he says that Wikipedia needs more scientific sourcing. - FrancisTyers 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I see your point. What about this ref?[17] Does the opinion of a professional nutritionist, as quoted in a nonscientific article, qualify as scientific sourcing? Or should we stick to peer-reviewed references only? If we apply the peer review only standard, we will need to remove a lot of references from the article. Here is my current proposal for the anorexia section:
"Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a warning sign for anorexia among young women,[18] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [19] [20]. However, though there may be a correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan diet.[21]"
I changed "risk factor" to "warning sign", so that it is clear that the diet does not cause anorexia. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Thats much better, I think the argument about scientific sourcing is one that needs to be thought about carefully. If we stick to scientific sourcing then it is true we would not be able to include your section, however we would also need to remove many parts and probably find better references for a lot of the article. If we allow non-scientific sourcing then I don't see why your section could not be included. Again I don't really care either way, but we should be consistent. Any input from contributors on the other side of the fence? - FrancisTyers 21:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
More peer reviewed source material can only help. The main function being the integrity of the already battered reputation of Wikipedia. I believe that should be the consistency here as much as possible. This page is one of the most edited articles on Wikipedia already. Let's get it right. Nidara 03:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there has been no objection to my most recent draft of the anorexia section, I am putting it in. Comments? We need to talk more about which sources are allowed for this article. I won't insert any source in the future that does not refer specifically to vegans, but we should come to a consensus on what we consider a "good source". There aren't a lot of good guidelines for what Wikipedia considers a proper citation, especially in cases where scientific sources are used. Here are some questions we should consider:

  • Is something from PETA a good source? Is something from the UN a good source? Is something from the Foundation from Animal Use Education a good source? Should the political motivation of sources be taken into account?
  • Should we cite sources that do not cite their sources (e.g. many of the politically biased sources, many nutrition sites, etc.).
  • Is peer review a "gold standard"? That is, can we always cite a peer-reviewed source if it is relevant?

Cheers, Skinwalker 21:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As this is a contentious issue, I'd favour sticking to peer-reviewed journals and books where they cite peer-reviewed sources. This would mean however cropping a lot from the article while we find proper sources. PETA would not be a valid source. The UN, FAO, WHO etc. would as they normally cite peer-reviewed stuff. Notmilk.com would not be a valid source, neither would vegsource.com unless they quoted peer-review stuff, and in that case it would be better to quote the actual study. Of course this only applies to factual stuff like nutrition, etc. Opinion could come from any source, but it would need to be clearly noted that it was opinion and not fact. Sources of this type probably shouldn't be valid.
Thats my 0.02€, and in response to the third point I would classify peer-review as "gold standard". It doesn't mean its necessarily correct, but its the best there is. - FrancisTyers 21:39, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
This anorexia argument is really weak material. At best it is conjecture or chat room back and forth. I can not believe you used chat room material as a source. Your best source is offline in Becoming Vegan. I couldn't tell you if the assertions here are even from peer reviewed study. I don't have a problem with it however, it just makes the criticism section look rather foolish. How about I start going through other articles and citing chat rooms. I'm sure I'd be a laughing stock. Nidara 05:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I guess it depends on the article. And some of the other stuff already makes the article look pretty foolish ;) - FrancisTyers 10:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought we all agreed on not including this link you point out as foolish. It is only foolish in title as the source material from this link is solid government statistics. Are chat rooms a good standard for citations, seriously? Point out the other flaws if you would be so kind. Nidara 14:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Until decent references and a weight of evidence can be supplied, this inclusions has to be limited. I agree with Nidara, others and my own experience of 20 years. Vegan anorexics are very thin on the ground. And an anorexic knowingly passing themselves off as a vegan to avoid criticism is not the same as a vegan. Refering to the initial article quoted where one mother states her teenage daughter is "very thin", what does that mean in scientific terms? Thin by whose standards? It is hardly worthy of inclusion. What other sources can the proponents provide? One FAQ written by a non-vegan and a couple of discussion boards entries?
If it is such a big, widespread issue, which I do not believe at all, can't you come up with statistics from either the vegan societies or anorexic organisations?
Fighting the trend for the first edit to be the deepest, I am changing the emphasis of this paragraph to represent the reality of the sources as stands. Frankly, I can imagine that you could find more " specialists " who consider the entire vegan community to be suffering from the same eating disorder than sustain veganism being a warning sign for anorexia. Medically, you would need more than just veganism as a symptom before you could jump to such an conclusion. Ditto, although more rare, anorexia is not just limited to women, so I am neutering it too.
I am swopping a non-pejorative version that represents the facts of the quotations ;
  • Non-vegan anorexics [22] and pro-ana communities have been known to suggest using a poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [23], the eating disorders predating the adoption of a vegan diet. Although there is no evidence to suggest that eating disorders are widespread amongst vegans, some nutritionists consider that a self-reported vegan diet can also be a warning sign for anorexia where other symptoms exist.
for currently sexist and pejorative version ;
  • Some nutritionists regard a self-reported vegan diet as a warning sign for anorexia among young women,[24] and pro-ana communities have been known to advocate poorly balanced vegan diets as a cover for anorexia [25] [26]. However, though there may be a correlation, there does not appear to be causation; eating disorders usually predate the adoption of a vegan diet.[27]195.82.106.14 02:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
The old version is neither sexist, nor pejorative, and I resent that mischaracterization. I restored my version. I solicited comments from other editors and was very careful to state that veganism does not cause eating disorders. Please find another axe to grind. Cheers, Skinwalker 14:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is sexist because it characterises only young women as anorexic although anorexia is suffered by both sexist. Or do your sources claim that self-reporting veganism is ONLY a warning sign amongst female anorexics and male anorexics do not present it !?!
Or it just that you could only find one and they happened female?
Look above for the solicitations of other editors and, yes, please find another axe to grind.
Let's go for the independent peer review science on this one, as even single interest groups are not reliable where there are vested interests.
I will also explain to you why your edit is lacking, nutrionalist would not JUST consider an individual as an anorexic BECAUSE they reported themselves to be vegan. There would have to be other symptoms present! And one mom worrying about one teenager being skinny does not make a scientific case. It that clear? 195.82.106.127 20:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
*OK. Skinwalker is back to their usual business of reverting edits whilst denying the existence of ongoing discussion ... 195.82.106.127 20:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I restored the section. I did take the concerns of other editors into account, and removed the "pseudovegetarian" reference. I also toned down many of the statements, removing altogether the "attractive cover for eating disorder" sentence. Your claim of "anorexics who are not in fact vegan" is not supported by peer-reviewed science itself, you know. I found sources that include a pro-vegetarian/vegan nutritionist cautioning about poorly balanced vegan diets in young women, and included it.
Also, you should know that the current DSM-IV definition of anorexia nervosa specifically exempts males from diagnosis, since the sufferer must have not menstruated for at least three months in order to be diagnosed. Of course, this requirement is controversial, as there are certainly cases of anorexia in males. The sources I reference are specifically about women, so that is why I refer to them.
Anyway, I'm not sure why I'm arguing with someone who repeatedly vandalized my talk page with a picture of an erect penis.[28] Please stop reverting the section; you already have enough bad faith with admins. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, read what other folk have to say. And read the website YOU chose as a reference. The author clearly states that she is not an anorexic herself. If you note, I changed the link to a more explicit page on her policy towards the vegan diet. If anorexia is only as you assert only female, therefore you dont have to state it.
The more recent edit is actually closer to the facts you present as truth from your own. And it is pretty damned obvious that one would have to have other symptoms rather than JUST " self-report " as being vegan.
Additionally, there is not enough sufficient evidence to state that that penis was erect. Its angle of dangle has not been brought into question. Indeed I was merely offering to raise with you the issue of vegan smegma being one of an few acceptable animal product and a chance to make it inclusion. So consciencious you were in debasing this topic.
Look to your self Skinwalker and let others see how you respond to reasonable and polite approaches [29]. Your constant need to attack and accuse, use WikiTricks and edit out what other say - even off other peope's discussion pages [30] - is a weak defence from ignoring discussion and consensus rather than rubbing home your anit-vegan stance.
Go cry to mommy admins if that is the only way you think you can win, if you are lucky will find an anti-vegan one. Otherwise , get over it and join into create a consensus.195.82.106.127 05:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

citations needed

I removed this until citations are found or it even has any relevance. To have any relevance it should be proved here that vegan diets cause more death than non-vegan diets.Nidara 07:30, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is the paragraph removed:

Some critics argue that many animals are also killed in the production of vegan foods. For example, enormous numbers of insects, rodents, and snakes are killed in the production of grain. Many vegans counter that a truly harmless lifestyle is impossible in their situation, and note that raising livestock requires more field animals to die than plant-based subsistence.

The critisism section looks more like a talk page and not an article. It needs to be cleaned up. I am marking this page for a cleanup, primarily the criticism section. ThanksNidara 07:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Please review NPOV as well as WP:NOT. I am in the process of adding citations. --Viriditas 07:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
All citations, grammer, and spelling have been corrected. I am removing the cleanup tag. Nidara 19:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
No, as the edit history demonstrates, it is still being cleaned. I'm adding the tag back in. --Viriditas 22:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not all grain is produced by vegns, for vegans nor produced in a vegan manner. I think that we should apply the " Idleguy Soya Bean Rule " here. The vegan manner of production reduces to a minimum or completely avoids all animal murder or suffering.
  • What the author and antagonists also chose to miss is that the primary difference between deaths recorded as being caused by a vegan diet and the deaths caused by the omnivorous diet is that in the vegan case, the deaths and animal suffering are not intentional whereas in the omnivorous case, they absolutely are.
Does this make any difference? By extension, in legalistic terms, without a doubt yes. It is the difference between a murder and a manslaughter or accidental death. In practical terms, from the vegan point of view, we would wholly adopt a position of seeking to avoid any such accidental deaths or suffering and if there were alternatives, as technologies become available we will support and adopt them. But at present, vegan attention is focused on the grossest forms of animal murder and torture. Give us time and we will get there. I am sure all vegans would agree on this.
As such, this whole debate as a contradiction of veganism is very weak especially as it fails to take on board that veganism is not a fixed destination but the beginning of a journey in much the same way, e.g. " democracy " is. 195.82.106.14 23:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Anything I do you will turn around and undo Viriditas. So I might as well not do anything right? Nidara 03:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuisine

For a change, I thought I'd like to examine a non-contentious part of the topic, the cuisine section. I have proposed an alternative edit that put veganism at the heart of it reather than meatism.

The bit I am not sure about is " ... most vegans prefer to cook without reference to meat ... ".

This is not something that exactly warrants scientific references but from over 20 years personal experience I would say it is almost universally true.

Comments? 195.82.106.14 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree. It was me that modified the article a day or so ago to make the point that we don't all exist on veggie versions of Chicken Mcnuggets and Turkey Twizzlers. some of us actually enjoy the whole slow food process of cooking and preparing meals with real, fresh, preferably locally (or home) grown ingrediants. quercus robur 00:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Wow, so do people on a non-restrictive diet! ;) - FrancisTyers 00:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes indeedy. However the previous wording of the cuisine section seemed to imply (to me at least) that vegans tend to rely on largely soya or glutten based meat analogue products. Hopefully my edit rectified this impression, and hopefully it was put accross in a way that was non-contentious, non POV and non-critical or challenging towards those that choose an omnivorous diet? quercus robur 01:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, heres an an ironical way of making my point (or maybe its off topic and colouring my brandy soaked 'NPOV' judgement???) - my 20 year old life-long vegan daughter has just this minute come back from her work Xmas meal for which she paid £45. Despite weeks ago requesting 'nut roast' which was supposedly on the menu (but would still have been a rip-off if you ask me...) she had to make do with a 'vegetable platter' of brussel sprouts, cabbage, boiled carrots, etc. Complaining about discrimination in the morning?? You bet we will be... Then theres all that shit in the article in the 'critisisms' section about how some non-vegans may resent the extra effort of accommodating the vegan diet. Maybe they shouldn't be in the fucking catering trade if they can't fucking 'cater' then????? quercus robur 01:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they're referring to people who have to go out with vegans to eat, I certainly give my vegetarian friends a lot of stick :) - My personal pet-hate with the catering industry is their lack of appreciation that some people would prefer to eat organic, non-death camp meat. Hence, I rarely go to restaurants and when I do I usually end up eating vegetarian, much to my chagrin. Conscientious meat-eaters are much less well served than vegetarians/vegans in the food industry. - FrancisTyers 02:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm too busy/lazy to wade through and read all of the talk page above (or even alot of the main article for that matter) to work out where you personally stand Francis, but i'm assuming you are an ethical meat eater/omnivore? It may surprise you therefore that despite being a strict vegan myself I don't actaully have any sort of a problem with folks who take responsibility for what they eat, despite originally coming from an animal rights background some 25 years ago my main issues nowadays are much more to do with the total inhumane-ity of what I call industrial pharming and what you call death camp meat. I'm sure we'd find we have alot of common ground, though maybe wiki is not the best place to explore it- what do you think about this article I wrote on permaculture and veganism? (it was due to be part of a larger article but unfortunately I gave away the old 386 I'd created it on without backing up!! Doh!!!) http://www.spiralseed.co.uk/veganperm/ quercus robur 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Check out my comments on the Environmental vegetarianism page. I'm fully pro-permaculture! :) I'll check out your page. I don't just find the meat aspect of industrial/intensive agriculture abhorent but the other aspects too. Huge monoculture isn't cool. - FrancisTyers 02:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

American punctuation, and

I have a question about American punctuation as I realise that the majority of contributors to the Wiki appear to come from North America and many are college age.

Now, I can cope with a 'z' instead of a 's' here and there and so on [ and I am grateful for my own typos being picked up ] but in British English - and let's face it, we invented it - we have a rule against placing a 'comma' before an 'and' in general use.

I went through this article to remove these once before but notice them creeping back in. Special purposes, yes. Generally, no.

Do you guys allow this or is it just as bad punctuation as it looks to us? Thanks. 195.82.106.14 01:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I write English English and ignore prescriptive grammar for the most part. There is no problem with putting a comma before an and. - FrancisTyers 01:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I believe that the rule is usually thus: keep the page consistent. Since the title is supposed to keep the original dialect's version (if there is a cross-dialect difference), follow the title. That isn't so apparent in this article, though. I'm fine with English English (for this purpose), and I'll alter any new spelling accordingly. However, my grammar will probably stay what is natural to me; if someone wants to edit it accordingly, I wouldn't have a problem. Canaen 06:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm British, and I can assure you that the Oxford comma (as it is often known) is not an Americanism. It's a somewhat contentious issue, but it's been around a long, long time, and is (of course) OED house style. And the Z instead of an S in -ize words isn't an Americanism either. It's very old, and represents a division from the French -ise. It's quite normal in words like 'realize'; note, though, that words like televise (from television) and analyse (analysis) must take the S.
You will find that most usage condemned as Americanism by British people turns out to be of British coinage, and those same people use American words and usage that would have horrified their grandparents. RattusMaximus 01:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Vegans and Vegetarians

Vegans reject dairy and meat, though vegetarians consume all but meat. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.30.130 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 18 December 2005.

Vegetarianism and veganism have the same diet. However, many ovo-lacto vegetarians prefer to call themselves "vegetarian" in order to simplify communication and because of many omnivores' unfamiliarity with pure vegetarianism; these people are commonly accepted as "vegetarians;" however, egg/dairy itself is not vegetarian food. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Joehaer (talk • contribs) 19:08, 18 December 2005.

I agree that there should be some mention older terminology

  • (True) vegetarian = Vegan
  • ovo-lacto-vegetarian = (Modern) vegetarian

--Salix alba (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Clean up status?

I read this article through, and apart from odd parts where syntax and spelling might need looked at, it looks ok to me. I made some corrections.

Could somebody please say why it has a clean up tag? It looks balanced, with various points of view expressed in a considered way, so some of the intensive editing has been worthwhile I think, allowing the recording of what can be very opposing points of view. Veganism is a fairly revolutionary idea, in the context of established eating and social habits and ideologies, so it is going to get a lot of edits.

It's great that we haven't really failed completely to express and consider all of the relevant points of view.

TonyClarke 19:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the points in the article require a little more meat on them? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dainamo (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 December 2005.
\frac{d}{dx} [ \frac{1}{3} r^3 ] —Joehaer 01:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes very good, ha ha TonyClarke 08:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Vegan nutrition

Should we not move more of the Vegan nutrition section off to the Vegan nutrition topic and replace it with an introductory paragraph?

At present the so called main article is a lot smaller than the section in the Vegan topic.195.82.106.14 02:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Be Bold! I agree. Canaen 06:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, unless there are any strong and rational voices against, I will move towards doing so. I will state that apart from the logical reason for doing so, shortening the current Vegan topic page will allow both subjects to be expanded on if so desired. Personally though, I think shorter is better - more definitive - all around.195.82.106.127 20:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly care one way or the other where the nutrition info goes... sticking it in its own article could improve the page. However, I'm not sure about this "complete protein myth" stuff. I didn't like the PDCAAS discussion before (too technical, and technically unsound at that), and I'm not convinced either for or against the complete protein "myth". Both sides seem to come from fairly pseudoscientific sources. I suppose a "complete protein" would be one that provides all essential amino acids in adequate amounts? I don't see why one single vegetable ingredient (like beans, for example) couldn't meet that standard if its amino acid content is known. On the other hand, if one ingredient doesn't provide enough of or all of the essential AAs, you have to supplement it with one other ingredient to get full nutrition. I'd like to see some verification of this, preferably from a nutrition journal, and not from "scientists" who make a living selling diet books. Cheers, Skinwalker 20:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support moving majority of 'vegan nutrition' info to seperate page. At present I start to read the article then my eyes glaze over and I lose interest when I reach that section. Keep main article as an encyclopedic over view that has relevant links to more in-depth sub-pages. A brief paragraph or 2 on nutrition should be enough for the main article, much as the 'vegan cuisine section touches on the subject but directs readers to the wikibooks section if they want to go there. quercus robur 00:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
OK. As there have been no strong opinions against, I will work on it.
  • Of course, expect Viriditas to reverse constantly it as a matter of course. ;-)195.82.106.69 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I'll try to make it simple and not too technical without compromising my argument too much. A human newborn doubles his weight in only 3 months. And babies have been found to grow fastest and remain healthiest when breast-fed. But the average protein content of human milk is only 6% of total calories (for comparison: cow's milk: 21%, rice: 8%, pasta: 15%, lentils: 29%, spinach: 30%, tomatoes: 10%, sesame seeds: 11%). A study on malnourished African children has found that oedema attributed to "protein-energy deficiency" healed equally quickly in two groups: one which was given a 12.5% protein diet meeting energetic needs, and one which was given a 2.5% protein diet (lower than protein content of apples!) meeting energetic needs. Average protein intake for vegans is 14% (omnivores: 16%) according to one source I stumbled upon (can't find it now). So even if total PDCAAS was sometimes lower for vegans than for non-vegans, there is just so much buffer zone in total protein intake, that it doesn't matter in cases where the diet is reasonably varied and doesn't depend heavily on empty calories (e.g. alcohol; sugar and vegetable oils in isolation).
The USFDA recommends consuming 10% of calories as protein. The way they arrived at this figure is by taking results from the United Nations on daily nitrogen loss. This research led to a minimum of ca. 3% protein calories at a biological value (the protein completeness score used before PDCAAS was invented) of 0.6 to maintain nitrogen balance, which is a figure taken from highly unbalanced diets in developed countries where people can't afford much variety. The FDA then almost doubled that figure as a buffer for protein completeness (the UNO numbers are already based on highly "incomplete" protein!), then doubled the result again to make sure that even people with unusually high protein needs relative to total calories are covered (mind you that pregnant women and bodybuilders have higher than usual caloric needs and thus can get more protein simply by eating more of the same!). This double-doubling of an already doubled score seems overcautious to me, but the thing that annoys me personally is when people who don't know how the USFDA numbers came about say that vegans need more protein because of "protein incompleteness", because the number was already adjusted for "incomplete" proteins. Twice! Aragorn2 21:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC follow-up

I'm glad to see anorexia addressed in the article. You seem like an excellent group of editors. Regarding definitions of vegetarianism, what I see discussed here on talk I'm not sure I'd agree with. Vegetarianism has many different definitions. The situation is somewhat analogous to kosher diets: there's a spectrum of practice. Those on the stricter side often regard more lenient practices as less than genuine. Some self-defined vegetarians eat dairy, egg, fish, and poultry. Some self-defined vegans who otherwise avoid animal products make an exception for the milk and egg ingredients in bread. Best wishes. Durova 04:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What you say is quite true in modern context. What the above editors were speaking of was that, in say, the 1840s, "Vegetarian" meant "plant-based"; essentially, it meant "Herbivore". The term "Vegan" was invented in the 40s because a bunch of Vegetarians were pissed off that the term had come to include the consuming of dairy products and eggs. Nowadays, Vegetarianism is certainly more of an unbrella term, with far too many varients to contain in any scientific categorization. Canaen 06:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Just because people who eat fish label themselves as vegetarians doesn't make it so. For example, I consider myself a mass-murderer although I've never actually killed anyone. Michael Bluejay 07:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This is one for some discussion forum somewhere else. It is not possible to be vegan and eat milk and eggs.195.82.106.127 20:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Skinwalker's Attack on " veggie-brandishing hordes " and pigs in crates image.

I think that if a contentious contributor Skinwalker is maing statements such as calling vegans " veggie-brandishing hordes " on another user finally comes out on Member user page calling's page.

This is an issue to be discussed as it clearly sets out a bias especially if that other member has attacked without consultation, see ;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Member#NPOV_on_Veganism Member is the contributor that came along and slapped a " {{totallydisputed}} " on the topic without so much as engaging consensus claiming that " The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed ". When Skinwalker went to try and find an ally on his discussion page and warn him , we are " really nasty ", the only reason for slapping a " totallydisputed " tag on us Member could state was; " I can't name any specifics other than the "pigs in crates" picture. Overall the artcle seems to exhibit a form of pro-vegan bias. I'll look at it more ". Member had not even read the topic! Skinwalker did not like the photo either. Perhaps too close to the truth?

The "pigs in crates" picture is seems fair enough to illustrate the argument between the so-called " animal welfare " of the meat industry against the argument of extending " rights " to animals and humane lifestyles.

What is the consensus on this? I have moved the imaged next to the ethics paragraph where it seems ot relate better.

The " totallydisputed " tag said " Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. " But I cant see any comment from Member.195.82.106.127 05:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Viriditas's editing off others user's comments from discussion page

I have a problem with Viriditas consistently editing off my comments from the discussion page and understand this is against etiquette.

It would not seem to be democratic to me and a challenge to freedom of speach.

  • Viriditas has also gone back to stuff the topic with references to vegetarianism.
  • I thought we had agreed that vegetarian content would be kept off the vegan page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.18.228.53 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 22 December 2005.
The "comments" you are referring to were personal attacks, and they were removed. If you can't refrain from personal attacks, don't edit this page. The "stuff" you refer to in regard to vegetarianism, has a direct bearing on the section in question, and presents both sides of the issue. "Vegetarianism" in this context, refers to veganism, which is often described as "strict vegetarianism", or in the case of the ADA, as a "total vegetarian". [31] --Viriditas 01:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I can't even remotely see how it is appropriate to edit anyone else's comments for any reason on a public talk page. If it is your personal page, that's another thing. But a public page? That's censorship. If you think what someone else said was wrong or personally offensive, then I suggest you convince them to remove it. If they won't, then you'll simply have to learn to live with it. --SpinyNorman 01:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are misinformed (as well as appealing to ignorance). Please review Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. The user in question has not been editing in good faith, and has engaged in vandalism, personal attacks, and edit wars under many different names and anon addresses. --Viriditas 01:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the part of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks where it said that this isn't official policy? It still isn't right to censor another person's opinions just because you find them personally objectionable. --SpinyNorman 07:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Did you read the official policy WP:NPA? Nobody has been censored. This page is for the discussion of the Veganism article. It is not for discussing or attacking other editors. I'm sorry you disagree, but that is official policy. --Viriditas 09:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Removing personal attacks is considered a guideline, albeit a disputed one. On another note, Wikipedia is not a democracy. - FrancisTyers 01:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Another user described it as "semi-policy". --Viriditas 01:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
That may be, however there is no consensus on removing anything. It is not required, simply an idea that many Wikipedians agree to. If someone has a problem with you removing their comments on a talk page, I suggest you cease. As well, I suggest you stop assuming that every anonymous IP is the same person. There are clear differences between several, including the beginning 2-3 numbers. For instance, my IP always starts out with 209 because it is the Area Code assigned to the area in which I am.Canaen 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Area code, lol! I suggest you read up on IP addresses. :) - FrancisTyers 02:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, it is something I've been meaning to do. I've just noticed that my IP always starts with 209 when I'm here. Canaen 04:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you SpinyNorman. You are too right it is censorship. I also consider that if active contributors with a particularly strong bias / POV such as Skinwalker - and let us face it " nasty ... veggiebashers " are clear insults to vegans " is found to be conspiring with others to alter the trend of a topic then far more worth to discuss matters between contributors rather than to go the route that Skinwalker and Viriditas have already done of attempting to censor other individuals, use their friendly admins to ban erroneous opposing editors and even conspire to attack and damage with libel such an individual as Canaen wishing to become an admin.
This is not a personal attack. This is a very serious matter we face with a two or three editors who seek to dominate this article with their often topic unrelated POV.
Regulars and newcomers should be aware of the history of this page and it not be edited off by those who wish to hide the their actions. When time allows I will provide references but I am not so egotistical, vain or immature as to go to the effort complaining to admins or brewing up falsified RFCs. If we are not adult enough to sort it out here consensually, then we do not deserve the Wiki. (--preceeding unsigned comment by 195.82.106.47)
Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Your comments do not have anything to do with the Veganism article in any way. If you can't discuss how to improve the article, then please remove your comments. Thank you. --Viriditas

Talk pages

Since there appears to be some confusion about how talk pages are used, I'm going to post the following links for those who are interested in reading further:

WP:TP: Talk pages are used to discuss how to improve the article. Talk pages are not a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. They are a forum to discuss how different points of view should be included in the article so that the end result is neutral. Partisan debates do not align with the mission of Wikipedia, and get in the way of the job of writing an encyclopedia. Arguing as a means of improving an article is considerably less effective than an equal amount of time engaged in research.

--Viriditas 00:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Use of vegetarian by ADA

"Vegetarianism" in this context, refers to veganism, which is often described as "strict vegetarianism" (see Mosby p.1797) or in the case of the ADA, as a "total vegetarian". [32] --Viriditas 01:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Totally disputed tag

Due to six reverts by an anonymous editor who engages in nothing but personal attacks, vandalism, and edit warring, I've added the totally disputed tag as a result of the removal of sourced criticism from this article. The anonymous vandal claimed that the content has nothing to do with veganism, but that is false. Brenda Davis is a vegan dietitian, and her book that is quoted concerns vegan diets. The content about vegetarian female atheletes refers to ADA's use of the term which includes veganism, as does the ADA's warning about adolescents with eating disorders, specifically their opinion that "vegetarian diets may be selected to camouflage an existing eating disorder". This refers to veganism. --Viriditas 03:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

ethical criticisms crop harvesting kills animals

I was wondering if we could add a blurb under the second-to-last paragraph in the ethical criticisms section about how, because vegans typically eat on a lower trophic level than non-vegans, less crop land would need to be cultivated if everyone were vegan. (of course this completely ignores problems with crop subsidies. Also, about the 1.8 billion animals figure, more than ten billion animals are killed for food in the US. I think putting these counterpoints are important because they are required to give depth to the issue and give some way for readers to see how good his arguments really are (especially since, if it is true how he states it, it undermines the reason most people are vegan). (RedBLACKandBURN 01:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC))

Good points. Yes, some of these things should be added as part of Gaverick Matheny's response to Davis (and in turn Davis is responding to Tom Regan). You can find an external link to the information you are looking for in endnote 31. I've actually asked other users to add this information (Canaen on his talk page), but so far, nobody has stepped up to bat (or has time). Since you pointed it out, perhaps you have the free time to do it. If you have questions, comment here or on my talk page. I'm currently on wikiholiday, but I'll check in ever so often. --Viriditas 02:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I am really not sure why whenever I add the part about the overall number of animals killed in America for food and contrast that to the amount of animals killed by crop harvesting, it keeps getting taken out of the article, even though it appears that people agree it is relevant to the article. I'm going to put it back in, post comments if you want to change it please. (RedBLACKandBURN 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
i added an "important point" referencing Matheny's response along with an addition in references. D4v3r5 20:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Choose veganism

People also choose veganism to minimize their impact on the earth. Several friends of mine use this ecological footprint argument. Could that be included under the ethics section?

Why not, I have some decent criticism of this argument too. - FrancisTyers 16:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
Huh? What? I'm new here. Was that a bad idea? JamieJones 02:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Not at all :) - FrancisTyers 02:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Francis, as a prime contributor(critic) to environmental vegetarianism, is patronizing all of you, or should I say patronising. Nidara 05:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Only in good humour though :P - FrancisTyers 14:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
In case people are still reading this strain: the ecological footprint argument has been included under the Resources and Environment motivation. --TimTL 00:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Vitamin D

I just read in the news that a deficiency of Vitamin D (which comes mainly from animal sources, except for UV sun exposure) could produce similar symptoms as B-12 deficiency. Could someone add this to the article? It's worth looking into. Badagnani 06:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

For those who don't know, Badagnani is referring to the risk of cancer, not the typical symptoms of vitamin deficiency. As far as I can tell, the relationship between B12 and the reduction of cancer is unclear, whereas current evidence suggests that vitamin D may reduce the risk of some cancers. Apparently most people get their requirements for D met from a combination of artificial food enrichment (often times fortified milk and cereals) and exposure to sunlight. Most vegan drinks - like soy milk, almond milk - are fortified with D. If you can get it, less than 15 minutes of of sun exposure two times per week provides adequate amount of D, although this doesn't work for everyone, especially infants. D deficiency typically results in rickets, osteomalacia, osteoporosis, and osteodystrophy, whereas B12 deficiency has been associated with hyperhomocysteinemia, stroke, dementia, and neuritis. --Viriditas 09:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for how much sunlight people need per week? Also is this whole body exposure? Or just face? Or face and arms? I hear this figure for sunlight a lot, but never with a proper citation.
Also while some non-dairy drinks are fortified with Vitamin D, some of this is D3 (i.e., of animal origin) and is not vegan. On D2 is suitable for vegans. patrickw 12:49, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"An initial exposure to sunlight (10 -15 minutes) allows adequate time for Vitamin D synthesis and should be followed by application of a sunscreen with an SPF of at least 15 to protect the skin. Ten to fifteen minutes of sun exposure at least two times per week to the face, arms, hands, or back without sunscreen is usually sufficient to provide adequate vitamin D." [33]. Source: Holick MF. (2002) "Vitamin D: the underappreciated D-lightful hormone that is important for skeletal and cellular health." Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes 9:87-98. "Thus, exposure to suberythemal doses of sunlight on the hands, arms, face, or back two to three times per week is more than adequate to satisfy one's vitamin D requirement. A study of New Zealand nursing home residents exposed to 15 or 30 minutes of sunlight three times a week resulted in a significant increase in blood levels of 25 (OH)D (Fig. 8)...Thus, judicious exposure to sunlight (suberythemal exposure) in the spring, summer, and fall is a good source of vitamin D3." See also: "Since the cutaneous production of vitamin D3 is dependent on so many factors, including season, time of day, latitude, and the person's sensitivity to sunlight (i.e., amount of skin pigmentation), no one recommendation can be made. If a person knows that he/she will develop a mild sunburn minimum erythemal dose (MED) after 30 minutes of sun exposure, then exposure of the face, arms, hands, and legs for 20% to 25% of that time (i.e., 6 to 8 minutes) 2 to 3 times a week is more than adequate to satisfy the body's requirement. A sunscreen with a sun protection factor of 15 can then be applied to prevent the damaging effects of excessive sun exposure. We observed that adults in a bathing suit exposed to 1 MED of tanning bed radiation raised their blood levels of vitamin D to levels equivalent to those achieved by ingesting between 10,000 and 25,000 international units (IU) of vitamin D. The adequate intake for vitamin D as recommended by the Institute of Medicine in 1997 is 200, 400, and 600 IU of vitamin D for ages up to 50 years, 51 –to 70 years, and 71+ years, respectively.11 However, in the absence of any exposure to sunlight, there is mounting evidence that at least 800 to 1,000 IU of vitamin D is required daily to prevent vitamin D deficiency." Source: Holick, MF. (2002). "Sunlight and Vitamin D: Both Good for Cardiovascular Health". Journal of General Internal Medicine 17:9, p.733. Sept. --Viriditas 13:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
This figure is for face, hands, back or arms, according to the reference Viriditas supplied (ok, that doesn't seem to clear things up much). However, the amount of time depends on whether the sky is overcast or there is fog/smog, it depends on the angle of the sun over the horizon, which can be a problem in northern climes. Skin color matters a lot, too, the lighter, the less time required (but be careful to avoid sunburn, of course). Age matters, the older you are, the less vitamin D your skin can produce. Sunscreen can greatly reduce vitamin D production. Baldness may help by increasing the area of skin exposed to direct sunlight significantly when dressed. Bright, light clothing lets more sunrays pass through than dark or heavy clothing. All of this affects vitamin D production. If one or more risk factors cannot be compensated by longer exposure, or exposure of greater skin area, dietary sources such as mushrooms, fortified foods and supplements are absolutely necessary. Aragorn2 21:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Other websites mention several other risks of Vitamin D deficiency besides cancer, including high blood pressure, depression, immune system conditions, osteoporosis, etc. Had no idea that fortified non-dairy beverages could have Vitamin D of animal origin. Scary. Badagnani 09:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

In that case, what did you mean by "similar symptoms as B-12 deficiency"? --Viriditas 10:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, depression comes into both fields, though I'm not Badagnani. Canaen 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Serious question

How stringent are most vegans? I mean, do they use plastic products, even though plastic is made from petroleum, and petroleum is an animal product? User:Zoe|(talk) 00:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Most vegans aren't stringent at all in this regard. The ideology allows for it.
Since the founding of that Vegan Society, however, the term veganism has come to mean people who seek to eliminate all animal products in all areas of their lives, as opposed to those who simply avoid eating animal products.
They only have to seek to eliminate animal products. If it's too inconvienient it isn't required. - FrancisTyers 01:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Francis. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
According to vegans, there are a few things to consider. Were animals exploited, enslaved, treated in a cruel manner, or experience suffering in order to produce plastic products? One could argue that people were exploited to produce the plastic, but that doesn't appear to fall under the scope of veganism. --Viriditas 07:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
There are an infinite amount of things to consider. Humans are animals, as they are not plants, minerals, or fungi, and exploitation of any animal if not a Vegan thing, though many Vegans do not consider this. Canaen 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Let's be realistic. There aren't an "infinite" amount of things to consider in this instance, and if there were, one couldn't consider them. Veganism is well defined, even if some aspects provoke disagreement or controversy. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
It's not about what we "have" to do; things aren't required, or decided by the Vegan Society. They're simply respected as group with a long history of opposing animal exploitation. Every Vegan makes their own decisions. Canaen 05:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Regardless, veganism is well-defined. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Every Vegan is unique. Two major areas of debate are usually Honey and Refined sugar: Some self-proclaimed vegans don't see Bees as animals, and therefore consume Honey. Though there is no animal product contained in the final refined granules of sugar, about 1/4 of commercially available refined sugar was processed with cow bones, and it's all mixed in with its Vegan counterpart (Beet Sugar). Some Vegans don't consider this to "count" as an animal product.
Some Vegans avoid intensive crop production, on account of countless small animals harmed by the use of industrial machinery in the harvesting. Others dismiss this as too inconvenient. As well, many Vegans avoid non-organic produce because of the bugs killed with pesticides, and the damage chemicals do to ecosystems.
It really depends on the Vegan. Some Jains, who at their best are extremely strict Vegans, wear face masks to avoid inhaling living organisms, carry brooms to sweep away living organisms before they step, and even starve themselves to death because they are not willing to cause any suffering. We're all different. Canaen 05:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
There are more similarities than there are differences, and as such, we can define what veganism is or isn't. Jainism has its own set of precepts. --Viriditas 08:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt they take into account human exploitation either. There are enough vegans going around drinking coca cola and wearing GAP clothing. But of course that is outside the scope of the article and I will try to keep my personal beliefs out of this ;) - FrancisTyers 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
This is another example, Viriditas of Veganism not being a set of rules. Many vegans do go around without regard for human exploitation, buying diamonds, drinking coke, and supporting many other cruel institutions. However, many also take human exploitation into account (myself, for example; all those other dirty vegan hippies in San Francisco), see it as a form of suffering, and so cease support for it.
Francis: Why should it be outside the scope of the article? I can't find a reason. Veganism is not just a diet, after all. I think it would be fitting. Canaen 02:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, you're welcome to include it in the Criticism section, I think you're wrong by the way, veganism is a set of rules and it is a lifestyle. The rules are "don't eat meat or use animal products", the rules are interpreted in different ways by different people, this is the lifestyle part. - FrancisTyers 11:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to kill myself for coming back to this article, but I don't think that Veganism can be narrowed to a set of rules; especially not the set that you put forth. A lot of us would prefer the Vegan Society's explanation over your's; if something that which we can reasonably cease causes suffering, it's not Vegan of us to continue that thing/action. I think the the interpretation is mostly about what's "reasonable" and what's not, though some does go into what's considered to be suffering, or a cause of suffering. Canaen 06:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Veganism doesn't require people to take into account human suffering, unless you are going to say that people who "don't eat meat or animal products" but do buy sweatshop clothing and drink coca cola are NOT vegans. Don't use a No true Scotsman on me now. Veganism isn't "avoiding suffering" it is "not eating or using meat or animal products". Perhaps you'd like to tighten the definition but then you'll need to decrease all the numbers of frequencies of vegans in the world as I imagine most studies go by my definition not yours. - FrancisTyers 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course veganism requires people to take into account human suffering. Humans are animals too. It is true that veganism is "not eating or using meat or animal products" as you stated, but you're trying to reduce to infinity. In actuality, you are the one trying to us a No True Scotsman here. The REASON vegans don't eat or use animal products is to "avoid suffering". That is simply a fact across the board, as far as I can tell. - Sometimes 20:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Och, tae be fair, nae true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.
The way Veganism is as a movement means that it is impossible to say all "true" vegans do one thing or another. The only defenition we can possibly apply is an agreement to strive to decrease suffering as far as is practical and possible. Different people interpret that in different ways. I don't eat refined sugar, because animal products are used in it's production; many other Vegans do, and they're still Vegans. I have actually broached the subject of human rights and labor-related issues in Vegan communities, and I've seen it done by others. Many Vegans don't take such things into account in their interpretation of Suffering, but that doesn't mean they're not Vegans.
Most studies approach Veganism as a diet, a strict form of vegetarianism, which is incorrect. That's why they go by your defenition. Canaen 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Allen's Study and a Reminder

While my personal opinion is that the current wording of the article makes the Criticism sections superfluous (if not just short of invective), I have a specific concern regarding the paragraph about Prof. Allen's study.

1) There is no reliable reference to the study. A great many internet sources claim the study was essentially bogus, and there was wording to this effect in the article sometime in the past.

2) If the study is bogus, what in the world is it doing in the article, much less in its current, unqualified form?

3) I suggest we remove the paragraph until we can ideally read the study ourselves. It seems to be too controversial a study at the moment to be included, unqualified, in the article.

In general most of the Criticism section just makes for a really bad encyclopedia article. Most of the paragraphs are highly duplicitous (the Allen example above), inflammatory, or irrelevant.

I urge all involved in this article to cool their passions and abide by logic and aesthetic tastefulness. This is not Usenet. We are not trying to convince anyone to become vegan, nor are we trying to prove its depravity. We merely are trying to inform people about what constitutes the vegan philosophy and lifestyle. The current article smacks of controversy a bit too much to do this.

The stretching that goes on in this article belies mal-intent. I close with an example. Operating under the assumption we are merely trying to inform, rather than discuss and debate, there is no reason that the article happens to mention a theological argument that animals feel no pain just because earlier the article mentions vegans are motivated by reducing what they see as animal suffering. A scientific argument might, just barely, be relevant, but a theological one?

Remember, we don't need to add paragraphs about the philosophical and scientific errancy of sexism and racism in every article about a sexists or racist person. Cheers to all. Shawn M. O'Hare 18:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


You claim there "is no reliable reference to the study"? Yet, I suspect most people here would accept the BBC as a reliable source. As for the "great many internet sources" questioning the study, can you give any examples of these? --SpinyNorman 21:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Below I include some links. I have also found the actual study. The links I include claim
  • the study was set up to obtain its conclusions (I have done ecology field research before and it is a bit frightening how easy it is to manipulate studies, and also statistics). Basically, the points most the references make are that the children were highly malnourished to begin with, so anything would have improved their diet. The abstract of the study itself suggests the normal diet of the control group was in fact inadequate, and ergo non-representative of a typical vegan diet.
  • the conference where the study was presented was funded by Global Livestock-CRSP. Maybe this indicates intent for a quite specific result, maybe not.
  • some of the research quoted in the study's abstract is not referenced. Minor point.
  • Prof. Allen was quote mined in the BBC article. Here are her own words, from one of the links below (bold emphasis mine). The news reporter “hyped” my concern about vegan diets for pregnant/lactating mothers and infants/children by not adding the sentence I was emphatic they keep in, namely 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. I completely agree that it is possible to add back those missing nutrients and have stated this in a position paper on nutrition in pregnancy for the American Dietetic Association. I also agree that well-managed vegan diets, plus supplements plus fortified foods to get those missing nutrients, are probably healthier for adults and even many children than the average US or UK diet.
  • Allen' Study
  • VegSource - A site for veganism, so take with grain of salt, ignore the hype. Does have a response by two dieticians to the BBC article though, and some links.
  • VegSource - link from above, about the funding of study.
  • Buzzle - similar as above, slightly different light.
  • The Oven - this contains Allen's comments that she was misquoted.

Conclusions

You say, SpinyNorman, that Yet, I suspect most people here would accept the BBC as a reliable source. It is unfortunate that people would put any significant trust in mass media for controversial issues, esp. nutrition, religion, environmentalism (i.e., areas people are fervent about and also not wont to change). Science in general is very poorly covered in non-specific mass media.
Always take bombastic claims from mass media with a grain of salt, and demand the original study. Clearly we don't have time to read every study of interest, but as a rule of thumb, don't accept mass media as the Truth on any scientific topic.
This goes for both sides in this particular article. Some media outlets will tout the amazing benefits of a vegan diet, claiming it to be a near cureall. Doubt this, and try to find the actual research. You will find many articles that speak about how a meat-based diet basically is a death-wish. Also doubt this, and try to read the original research. Clearly articles exist that say the opposite.
In closing, I suggest we remove the paragraph. It and the BBC article appear grossly out of context and non-informative. Regards to all. Shawn M. O'Hare 09:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Shawn. It's good to see this kind of voice in here. Canaen 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Allen study is not a valid study of veganism. The BBC article itself explains that the experiment consisted of giving malnourished children either 2oz of meat, 1 cup of milk, or an equivalent amount of OIL. Because children did best on the meat as compared to drinking pure fat, she concludes veganism is unhealthy. Who can possibly think this has any scientific value? It should be pulled or a comment added about its flawed comparison. AstroVegan 18:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I have now read the original papers. (The paper cited above is just the experimental and baseline discussion. The results after the first year are found here.) The BBC and VegSource give a very poor description of the actual study. (Just reiterates a previous point about not blindly trusting media outlets to get their facts straight.) Despite their claims, the study did not merely give children a piece of meat, cup of milk, or a little oil. In reality they gave each of the 3 groups a vegetable stew with the addition of meat, milk, or oil to provide identical caloric (and mass) intake. As a result, the "oil" group (called the Energy group in the study) actually got larger portions of the stew, so the comparison isn't so blatantly silly as the BBC represents (and I originally believed). The problem remains, though, that the "vegan" group was eatting a nutritionally deficient diet; adding meat or milk would obviously lessen the deficiency, as would adding any number of vegan foods other than vegetable oil. Still, after one year, the only difference found was higher B12 in the children given the meat or milk. Not surprising given the total absence of B12 in the stew itself.
Given the questionable value of the research with regard to veganism, the known issues with B12 covered elsewhere in the article, Allen's own objections to the BBC article's misrepresentations, and the apparent consensus of people here, I will delete the paragraph about the research. I will leave her criticism of veganism in place as it seems a fair criticism from a researcher in the field and leads in well with the next paragraph about breast-feeding mothers needing to get plenty of B12. AstroVegan 03:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Ethical criticism: Intensive farming

It seems very much to me that the following would be much better fitted in a criticism of Intensive farming:

"Critics like Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, argues that the number of wild animals killed in crop production is greater than those killed in ruminant-pasture production. Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed. [29] Davis gives a small sampling of field animals in the U.S. that are threatened by intensive crop production, such as: opossum, rock dove, house sparrow, European starling, black rat, Norway rat, house mouse, Chukar, grey partridge, ring-necked pheasant, wild turkey, cottontail rabbit, grey-tailed vole, and numerous species of amphibians. In one small example, an alfalfa harvest caused a 50% decline in the grey-tailed vole population. According to Davis, if all of the cropland in the U.S. were used to produce crops for a vegan diet, it is estimated that around 1.8 billion animals would be killed annually."

As I believe I've mentioned to several current editors, Vegans don't neccessarily utilize Intensive farming, and are usually more inclined toward small-scale, organic farming methods, for many reasons. These include the unneccessary death of insects due to pesticides used in intensive farming, the small animals killed in production mentioned above, along with many other reasons specific to individuals.

So... why is this bit here? Canaen 02:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Canaen. The section in question is a criticism of vegan ethics, not intensive farming. See the references for further information. In other respects, I'm not sure if Idleguy was correct to remove Gaverick Matheny's counterargument, [34] merely because he was a graduate student. The reference in question was a published, peer-reviewed journal article, and I think it stands on its own merit and not on Matheny's educational status. As such, I think it should be added back in to the article, but I'll wait for Idleguy to respond, first. —Viriditas | Talk 10:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. As per Wikipedia official policy, "The fact that a statement is published in a peer-viewed journal does not make it true." probably would apply here given the dubious credentials of the person who prepared that paper. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Beware_false_authority. Most would be hesitant to use an undergrad's research paper in Wikipedia or anywhere else as a source. Idleguy 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Idleguy. There appears to be some confusion. Gaverick Matheny is a published, academic author whose opinion on vegan ethics is topical and relevant, especially in the context of a criticism of vegan ethics by S. L. Davis. Davis and Matheny are both discussing the same issue, namely Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle", as outlined in A Case for Animal Rights (Matheny authored the chapter "Utilitarianism and Animals"). Both Davis and Matheny published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, with Davis rebutting Regan's LHP and Matheny providing a counterargument to Davis. In this instance, there is no issue with "false authority", as Davis and Matheny are both discussing animal bioethics, in relation to the ethics of veganism. Both Davis and Matheny are qualified to comment on this issue (Matheny is currently publishing from the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland while Davis was at the Oregon State University Agriculture Experiment Station). This may not be obvious to the casual reader. --—Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it's fine to include the paper. In academic science (at least in the US), it's very common for graduate students to be listed as first author on peer-reviewed papers. It's slightly less common for graduate students to publish their own papers, independently of their research advisor, but far from unheard of. In fact, people's most highly cited papers tend to come from their graduate or postdoctoral work, before they are considered an "expert" in the field. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, this is indeed a very close call. But from what Skinwalker has to say it seems that papers published by graduate students are pretty well received. But in some parts of the world, a graduate student's paper would hardly be given importance, especially on such a contentious subject. Since Wikipedia caters to a global audience I feel we should be sending the right message in maintaining a uniform standard and exclude these (unless the author is now well recognized and the paper was made when he WAS a graduate etc.). Therefore I propose we get a better source that will be seen as more credible for a reader from Asia. Hope I have not confused anyone. Idleguy 14:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
At present, I don't see any issue with the quality or credibility of the source, and the author in question has published (and continues to publish) on the same topic. See also: [35]. Furthermore, it is important to include Matheny's opinion for the purposes of NPOV. —Viriditas | Talk 11:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Matheny continues to publish after his graduate work, and is a recognized scholar in the field. This stuff needs to be there for NPOV, as well. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see which ethics it's criticising. Where does the article say that vegans ignore this, or don't care? Who's to say we don't? Do you have a source to say we don't?
I'd also like to note that I see no Criticism of Christianity on the Christianity page whatsoever. Nor on Judaism or Jainism, Ahimsa, Spanish people, or a number of other articles I could relate to this. Canaen 22:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the criticism of the ethics, did you look at the references? I explained above. I'm not sure what your comment about religion has to do with this. I intend to expand the criticism. —Viriditas | Talk 08:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I did look at the references. I saw a book, which I don't have in front of me. Therefore, it doesn't tell me anything. I'm not saying that the information isn't good; it very well may be, and I believe you in that respect. However, it just doesn't belong here. By placing it where it is, the article is assuming that all Vegans make use of Intensive Farming, which they don't. Some, but not all. Canaen 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, the Christianity page has been experiencing an ongoing edit war, and is tagged NPOV presumably because of its lack of criticism, so I don't think that's a good example. Indeed, what does religion have to do with this, apart from some esoteric thoughts on Jainism? Canaen, are you implying that vegans are above criticism because of their personal beliefs?
Any subject which has a body of relevant criticism as a primary or secondary source needs to have this criticism discussed in its article, in order to give a reader a full understanding of the topic. This is also a way to promote counterarguments to the criticism. One of the fundamental tenets of veganism is that avoiding animal products eliminates animal suffering. Documenting a counterclaim to this tenet is appropriate to this article, and should not be moved off to a secondary page. If animal suffering is inevitable, even with organic farming methods (which is demonstrably true), the central argument for veganism could revolve around some sort of "harm reduction", rather than the elimination of all suffering. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Read the Vegan Society's definition again. That's what most of us use. We don't think we're ever going to eliminate suffering entirely; Veganism, in general, does indeed revolve around reducing harm, as far as possible and "practical"; this leaves it open to many people on different levels. I'm not saying the article should be without criticism, I'm just trying to say that:
  1. Vegans don't claim to live without causing suffering. Simply to strive to reduce it as much as possible and practical.
  2. Talking about animals killed as a result of intensive farming simply doesn't have anything to do with Veganism. Not all of us make use of intensive farming, and to assume so is insulting.
  3. This bit about intensive farming might be criticizing what many percieve to be Vegan ethics, but not what they are in actuality. It seems entirely out of place to me, and would be much better suited at Intensive farming as a problem seen by Vegans and others concerned with non-human life. This is an issue that Vegans are concerned with; indeed, it is one of many reasons why many Vegans strive to avoid products of intensive farming. It just doesn't fit. It's like criticizing Anti-War activists because U.S. Government is driven by Imperialism. It makes no sense for this to be used here. Canaen 09:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The actual moral arguments are not particularly focused on intensive farming. Other aspects, such as the principle of "least harm", the "logic of the larder", "act–utilitarianism", and "animal welfare" are essential. A discussion of vegan ethics is relevant to this article. —Viriditas | Talk 11:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. What I'm getting at is that when I read this bit of the article, it seems to me that Davis is saying that because many Vegans eat products of Intensive farming, Veganism is a bad thing. It doesn't at all seem to be criticising anything in the article. Perhaps it would seem more relevant to me if someone who recognized exactly which part of Vegan ethics Davis is criticising would write something promoting that ethic first. Canaen 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see the problem. Imperialism? Eh? We're not assuming that vegans don't avoid products of intensive farming. I understand that most vegans try to reduce suffering, and recognize that completely eliminating it is impossible. However, I think you're conflating several issues here. One, that vegans are opposed to factory farming, or, as you put it, intensive farming. Two, that vegetable production itself, whether factory or organic/earthfriendly/etc, inevitably kills small animals, insects, and so on.
I am not aware of a reputable source that describes the impact of non-intensive farming on local fauna. If you know of one, please enlighten us. In the absence of a credible primary or secondary source that discusses this specific topic, we should include criticism of "least harm", while acknowledging that the critter death toll from non-intensive farming is probably, but not certainly, lower than it is from intensive farming. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Skinwalker, Intensive farming refers to industrial agriculture; you might consider reading the article. While Factory farming is definitely linked, they are not mutually-inclusive; one refers to the production of animals, the other (primarily) to the production of crops.
I'm wasn't aware that Davis included small, organic farming in his criticism. The quote from the article is as follows:
"Whenever a tractor goes through a field to plow, disc, cultivate, apply fertilizer and/or pesticide, and harvest, animals are killed."
Small-scale, organic farming generally would not utilize a large tractor (on roads at most), and wouldn't generally be supporting a monoculture (utilising fields of the same crop, or even the structure of a field at all). Nor would they be using chemical fertilisers (what does manure kill?), or pesticides. Crops are generally harvested by hand, reducing the death rate of mice and other small animals to a negligable level (they'd only die as a result of an accident such as a shovel falling on their head, or because of an irrate farmer). So, what part of Davis's criticism applies to small-scale, organic farming?
As for a source explaining the impact of non-intensive farming on local fauna, that would obviously depend on what flora was being grown. However, I will get back to you, realizing that not everything may be considered if it is not seen by all of us. Canaen 07:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You could be dead-on correct, but you're ignoring an essential metric: yield. Inarguably, producing the same crop yield organically requires more land and labor. How does the friendliness of these methods compare to the increased area of the damage? And a final ethical question: could you even feed the world using organic methods? Would they be efficient enough? However, I think the organic question is technically orthoganal to the veganism one. They do not necessitate each other. --Davidstrauss 11:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Explanation for my revert

Jerrymander, I'm sorry to revert your edits, but the language wasn't consistent with our editing policies, which say we have to write from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and not state point of view (POV) as fact. It might help if you were to review some of our policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 09:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On vegan health

I noticed that the health section of the article says,"Vegetarians have been anecdotally reported to have favorably lower body mass indexes than people who eat flesh, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease. However, no cause and effect relationship between vegetarian diets and these health benefits has been scientifically established."

I'm not sure that the facts are anecdotal in nature. For instance, in the book The China Study, after rather convincingly linking the consumption of animal protein to the growth of cancer, an increase in the risk of heart disease, and other western diseases such as diabetes, Collin Campbell goes on to say, on page 242, "The findings of the China Study indicate that the lower the percentage of animal-based foods that are consumed, the greater the health benefits-even when the percentage declines from 10% to 0% of calories. So it's not unreasonable to assume that the optimum percentage of animal-based products in zero..."

This is hardly random spouting, but rather information backed by a decades long study of the relation between diet and disease.

The article could probably afford to be slightly less conservative given the weight of the evidence. Plenty of published medical doctors such as Dr. John McDougall and Dr. Joel Fuhrman say the same thing.

What do you think?--Rustic Bohemian 01:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah...So no opinion? I guess I can go and make the change then? --64.72.76.6 23:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be better if you found the actual study cited in The China Study and included it. Dr. Campbell is a well-known vegan activist, so like any activist-derived material (including meat-eater activist!) I would treat it with a grain of salt. Aside from that, I am not convinced we should present popular diet books as authoritative in nutritional discussions. Is the citation given in the book? If so, please find the original paper, read it, and decide if it supports this argument. Cheers, Skinwalker 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell is a nutrition scientist and project director of the Cornell-Oxford-China Diet and Health Project, which studied tens of thousands of people over two decades, and "The China Study" is his summary of the results. Campbell is certainly an authoritative source concerning the results of that research. Therefore, I would hardly call "The China Study" a "popular diet book" as if it were unscientific dribble like Atkins. AstroVegan 18:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's nice. We cannot blindly appeal to authority, no matter how "authoritative" a source is considered. Is the China Diet peer reviewed? Certainly the studies Dr. Campbell cites in it are. To reiterate, please find the original studies (published in a peer-reviewed journal) and decide if the conclusions support including this study in the article. The China Diet is being marketed as a popular diet book (check its entry at Amazon), and like the Atkins diet, we need to treat any nutritional info from them as suspect, unless the info is backed up by peer-reviewed research. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree primary, peer-reviewed articles are better than published books, but it is not an appeal to authority to cite a scientist discussing his/her own published research. In the context of the scientific veracity of a claim, though, I concede that it is correct for Wikipedia to insist on using the peer-reviewed articles. AstroVegan 23:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
You are all quite incorrect, Dr. Campbell is not a vegan or animal rights activist by any means. The man grew up on a dairy farm and was/ is a very respected nutrionist. He along with top nutritionist in China did a 15(something along those lines) year study funded by the US and Chinese governments. After all of that time and sifting through thousands and thousands of pages of data he came to the conclusions stated above (understated at that) to say now that he is a "vegan activist" because he know advocates a plant based diet is ridiculous. Not everyone who disagrees with the conventional science of the time is a liberal nut, you sound a bit like the people who would stone me for saying the earth is not the center of the universe. Baumstev
Unfortuately, that's how all things which challenge the status quo are treated in established Western society. A lot of people can't look back in time, and make those connections; it's something we've come to accept as standard. Canaen 06:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Dr. Campbell is Jacob Gould Schurman Professor Emeritus of Nutritional Biochemistry at Cornell University. "He has received more than 70 grant-years of peer-reviewed research funding and authored more than 300 research papers. "The China Study" was the culmination of a twenty-year partnership of Cornell University, Oxford University and the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine." He was also involved in the discovery of "dioxin". To discredit this scientific study and to instead leave the definition of veganism claiming that "there has been no evidence to support this claim" - is astonishingly ignorant and invalid.
An Oxford University study [(article)] showed that in comparison to meat eaters, vegetarians had a 24 per cent reduction in mortality from heart disease even when other lifestyle factors such as smoking, exercise, and socio-economic class were taken into account.
No matter what you say about statistics about vegetarians, it doesn't mean a vegetarian diet is inherently healthier. Vegetarians probably, as a whole, care more about eating healthily than Joe American. But it's not logical from the assertion you make to conclude that the exclusion of meat or animal products itself is the source of the health.
Consider an analogue argument. According to insurance statistics, drivers of red cars are more likely to speed and get in accidents. That's why their insurance rates are higher. But it would be ridiculous to say it's the red color itself that is the source of the accidents. That's basically what you're saying with vegetarianism/veganism. Bottom line: correlation is not causation. --Davidstrauss 11:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The quantity is also important: Eating meat in huge quantities is unhealthy as is eating bread, however many would rather eat two-three greasy meat pizzas or hamburgers than a kilogram of bread & legumes - Eating meat doesn't make anyone automatically fat or unhealthy, nor does eating vegetables make anyone slim and healthy. Overall, if nutritional additives are indeed required then I'd have to say strictly natural vegan diet is less healthy. - G3, 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well said. Let's get the promotional fluff out of this article. --Davidstrauss 11:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Insects

My question is, avoid insects. Are Vegans allowed to eat insects, because in reality, its impossible to avoid consuming all living things. A lot of insect material gets into vegan foods, and the government has controls for how much is allowed in, but none the less, it gets in. How does this play a part in vegan culture? P.S. I am not vegan, or vegi, nor am I downing the culture, just honestly curious as to this question.

Some hardcore vegans will wear masks to avoid accidentally swallowing insects. See Jainism. But, you make a good point. Insects are everywhere, and impossible to avoid. —Viriditas | Talk 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Vegans are opposed to the intentional consumption of insects, but (should and generally do) recognize that unintentional consumption of animal products of varying kinds will occur. This is unavoidable and therefore it is difficult to see how one could make it that much of an ethical issue, as veganism makes no claim to be a pure ethical system but an ethical improvement over a normal diet. Kellen T 18:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It's usually regarded as just unavoidable, and it will probably make a Vegan feel bad if they accidentally kill an insect, but it's something to get over, not to dwell on. That said, Vegans don't intentionally cause suffering to any animals, including insects. I know what you're talking about with the government standards; they also have them for lizard heads and tails, bird beaks, etc. Especially in the canned food industry. Appetizing, eh? Canaen 07:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Insects can't suffer - Some don't even have any memory, infact most have probably seen insect repeatedly burn itself to a normal lamp. Saying an insect suffers ie. acknowledges & recognizes pain is pure anthropomorphism (as some would argue is animal suffering and veganism in general). - G3, 15:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I know that this particular thread has not been posted to in a while, but I haven't noticed it before, and felt like I had to contribute another perspective. Although I fully understand that insects may not have the nervous system necessary to "suffer", an insect dying is none-the-less a life that has been lost. Veganism is not only about "not killing things that can feel pain", Veganism is about preservation and respect for life. --Sometimes 06:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Orthorexia nervosa

I see no mention of the eating disorder (also known as "righteous eating"). GreatGatsby 22:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Would you explain how Orthorexia nervosa is relevant to this article? If you think it's relevant to general veganism, then anyone else who's simply trying to eat healthy could also be accused of having this particular pathology. -MichaelBluejay 22:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
We had a fairly extensive argument over the mention of eating disorders in this article (see the talk archives). While it is tempting to discuss an obsession with "correct" eating habits in the context of alternative diets, I'd rather not include orthorexia in this article. Orthorexia, at this point, is at best a fringe term among eating disorder specialists, and does not enjoy wide acceptance in peer-reviewed literature. It would be best if we held off on discussing it until 1) it is included in the DSM as a recognized eating disorder and 2) there is peer-reviewed literature that connects orthorexia with veganism or vegetarianism. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Bluejay: No, they wouldn't be accused of it, because most people who try to eat healthy still keep animal products in their diet (moderation =/= restriction). Anyway, one could make the same argument that anorexics are 'just' trying to lose weight. Skinwalker makes valid points, though. GreatGatsby 05:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a belief that Veganism is an eating disorder. Whether you agree with it or not is absolutely irrelevant, an NPOV article would discuss it, but this article isn't even allowed to have an external link? Mbac 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Just as there is a belief that Omnivorism is an eating disorder when it comes to humans, and often other animals as well. Also, among humans at least, that Omnivorism, especially eating meat, is a mental, social, and economic disorder. Pacifists are sometimes considered mentally ill. As are militarists. Generally, two people on opposite sides of a given ideological spectrum (or other spectrums, for that matter) will try to discredit the other as much as possible, and make great claims supporting their own side of the spectrum. Wikipedia's job is to stay in the middle of the spectrum, but document both sides in a NPOV, encyclopedic fashion. Canaen 07:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Definition Discrepency / abscence of Lifestyle

Someone, since the last time I bothered to read much of this article has changed the intro, and the definition section, so that the article gives the impression that Veganism is nothing more than a diet. The full quote from the Vegan Society's Articles of Association describing the definition is as follows:

"In this Memorandum 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."

It seems very much to me that The former, rather than the latter should be used as the main defenition in the article, with mention that some self-described Vegans are only so in the Dietary aspect.

In addition, the American Vegan Society's full defenition is as follows:

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

The current text of our article calls this defenition similar to the British Vegan Society's defenition. To me, at least, this seems much more similar to the full defenition than simply the dietary one.

If whoever removed the full defenition from the article has good reason, I'd like to hear it; otherwise I plan to bring it back. Canaen 02:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I figure that 5 days is enough time, and I couldn't find anything about either on this page or on the most recent archive. Canaen 23:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Prejudicial picture

This picture promotes an emotional response. It implies that the ethics of veganism are correct. It makes the article biased without adding any useful information about veganism. It should be deleted. --Jeblis 19:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a photo which illustrates a situation which might cause someone to be vegan. It does not imply that the ethics of vegansim are correct, unless you agree with vegans that such a situation is unethical. The caption describes exactly what is occuring in the photo. Lastly, removing something just because it evokes an emotional response is stupid. Not to Godwinize, but please see Holocaust#Death_squads_.281941-1943.29 for just such an example. Kellen T 21:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
By that reasoning we should also post a picture of an obese person, since that also may cause someone to decide to be a vegan. This is not truly descriptive of most vegans since while they do not want to use animal product no matter how humanely the animal was treated. And yes something that evokes an emotional response that seeks to bias the article should be removed. It's the logical fallacy "Appeal to Emotion"--Jeblis 22:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
In my experience with vegans, most are swayed by concern for animal wellbeing rather than for some sense that they'll be slimmer. I have also personally met many vegans who would probably not be vegan if milk, eggs, etc came from more humane processes. I will reiterate that I do not think that the picture seeks to bias the article. It is essentially a statement of fact. There is also no logical fallacy at play. That would be along the lines of: "Does this picture gross you out? If so, then you should be vegan." But we have no such situation here. We have: "Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat..." and a picture illustrating said cruelty, with no conclusion, thus no logic involved, and thus no logical fallacy. Kellen T 22:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
The photo is clearly pushing a POV, and its relevance to this article is merely tangential. It would be perfectly apposite in the factory farming article, but it doesn't belong here. Nandesuka 11:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Treatment of animals (especially factory farming) is central to the ethical basis of vegansim. What we have is one picture that is relevant to the specific section with which it is aligned. Kellen T 12:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't be silly. Are you saying that if I replaced that picture with one of some happy animals cavorting on a free-range farm, you wouldn't view that as emotion-laden and POV? Of course you would. The picture is absolutely inappropriate in this context because it is implying n point of view on the part of Wikipedia on whether or not the beliefs of those vegans are correct. By contrast, a picture of some vegans protesting treatment of animals in factory farms would not be POV, because that would address the article directly and is documentary of the subject of the article, rather than presenting the beliefs of the subjects as objective truth. Nandesuka 12:09, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm making no claims about whether the picture evokes an emotional response. Whether it does or does not is irrelevant. The photo illustrates this section:
Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat, [10], dairy, non-vegan cosmetics, clothing, and other industries.
Just as the photo of vegan sushi illustrates the vegan cuisine section. You're not complaining about how delicious the sushi looks and therefore how POV it is. A photo of vegan protesters in this article would indeed be relevant, but perhaps to a controversy section or a section about vegan activism or activists, but not to a section about the fundamental ethical basis for veganism. Finally, a photo of free range animals may also be relevant, but would be more appropriate in the criticism section, where arguments are made that eating free range animals mitigates the fact that they raised and killed exclusively for human consumption. Kellen T 12:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
As Kellen has stated, it's just a picture of the conditions which exist in modern factory farms. There's nothing biased about it. If you don't like it, fine, but that's no reason to remove it from the article. Not everyone's emotions are evoked by the image. If your's are, that's no fault of the article's. Canaen 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The picture should stay. Factory farms suck and they are the reason many people adopt veganism. - FrancisTyers 00:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep the photo due to relevancy. —Viriditas | Talk 09:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

The photo should be deleted, it DOES promote an emotional response, you have to remain neutral here, you're taking activism into the article and that should not be allowed. --The Beorn

Did you bother to read the responses above? Do that, then comment. Kellen T 09:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

vote to retain picture - it's relevant to the article quercus robur 11:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't vote here, but yeah. Kellen T 12:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The picture is IMO completely irrelevant to veganism and misleading - The only case it makes is one for more humane treatment of animals. This aspect should be mentioned in the caption too. For that matter, if human treatment of animals is primary concern for vegans, then would they eat meat of naturally died animals like for an example an antelope killed by a lion and left half uneaten? - G3, 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

To G3: I think that most vegans would agree that eating an antelope already killed by a lion in a situation where plant foods were not available would be entirely condoned by the philosophy of veganism. For example, I wear leather, because I purchased it before I became vegan. Additionally, a friend of mine gave me some shoes he didn't wear because they didn't fit him will, made of leather, and I now wear them almost every day. There is, in fact, NOTHING more vegan than making sure that if an animal had to die, we should in the least utilize the products from their body. I do not purchase leather products, but if a cow had to die for the shoes my friend owned, and he wasn't using them, it is in my opinion extremely vegan to at least make sure that those shoes are used instead of sitting in the back of a closet.--Sometimes 06:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, having read the arguments for keeping the photo, and those against keeping it, I have to say the "keep" contingent is unconvincing. The photo is clearly intended to provoke an emotional response, while at the same time failing to provide insight into the subject. More importantly, the photo does not in any way depict suffering animals. Please save your rhetoric, there is nothing in the photos suggesting that the animals pictured are suffering. They are simply pigs in a small cage. No argument can be made that the photo definitively depicts ANYTHING other than pigs in a small cage, and one can assume said pigs are unhappy, but absent psychic powers, it is only an assumption. More importantly, please stop being disingenuous. It is frustrating when a group uses contrived arguments in obvious attempts to push their POV. We all know what the intent of including the photo is, so stop acting like we're idiots please.

Article in the Independant

Veganism featured on the front page of the UK newspaper The Independent An ethical diet: The joy of being vegan a firly interesting read. Key points

  • "There are estimated to be at least 600,000 vegans in the UK, although there may be up to one million."
  • "the market for vegan food is thought to be growing by up to 15 per cent a year."
  • Latest study shows a "vegan diet is better than a veggie or carnivorous diet for staying slim."
  • The vegan movement was started by a woodwork teacher, Donald Watson, in 1944 because of a desire to improve animal welfare.
  • Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia, has a veritable roll-call of celebrity vegans. Woody Harrelson, the actor, is a vegan, as are his fellow Hollywood stars Joaquin Phoenix and Alicia Silverstone.

There may well be info worth includeing from the article. --Salix alba (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the great tip! —Viriditas | Talk 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Repetition

If this is an inappropriate place for comment, if someone could move it I would appreciate it.. as a casual reader of the article, it seems that the "full British definition" is mentioned way, way too often. I think we have understood it by the first two or three times we've read it. -- Kitsune818 12:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Vegan cooking - vegetarian sushi?

Maybe it's just me, but it seems kind of strange to have vegetarian sushi as an example of vegan cooking - there's not much cooking there beyond making the rice. Maybe change the caption to vegan cuisine or get a picture of a different dish?

In any case, minor complaint. --220.9.84.29 12:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Changed caption "vegan cuisine". Femto 14:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

User:CountZ put a NPOV tag on this article, saying "The "motivations" section reads like a puff piece for veganism, especially in how it extols the vegan diet. Requires rewrite for neutral point of view." However, the points made in the motivations section are countered in the criticisms section, which is nearly twice as long. I suggest removing NPOV. Kellen T 09:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Cheers, Skinwalker 12:37, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's generally considered inappropriate to apply the NPOV tag without pointing out what, specifically, is POV. That being said, let's give User:CountZ a day or so to specifically identify the offending sentences and suggest a remedy before removing it. Nandesuka 14:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here are the offending sentences, extracted from the health section. In particular, it makes a false comparison between veganism and vegetarianism. The evidence used isn't comparable. As far as I can tell, veganism means no animal products, period. Vegetarianism means no meat, but dairy and eggs are okay.
Vegan diets bestow several nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, no cholesterol, no animal protein, and higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been anecdotally reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease. Vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer. Thousands of scientific studies demonstrate the benefits of consuming whole plant foods, and concomitantly, the dangers of eating animal-based foods. The "Grand Prix" of dietary studies, The China Study, reveals that even very small amounts of animal products significantly increases disease risk.
CountZ 19:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that these read like puffery. Anyone want to take a crack at rewriting them to sound a little less breathless, and to refer to reliable, verifiable sources as appropriate? Nandesuka 20:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
put a citation on the body mass index claim and noticed an increase in citations in the health section in general. do we feel we are moving to a more npov or is a rewrite still requested? frymaster 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My opinions on the problems with this paragraph, in no particular order: -"anecdotally reported?" by whom? If it's not a verifiable statement from a reliable source, we shouldn't be including it in our encyclopedia. What does it mean that the China Study is the "Grand Prix" of dietary studies? Who calls it that? What does that even mean -- that's the sort of thing I call "puffery"; it has no specific meaning but carries emotional connotations. For that matter, how about a citation to the China Study?
Even worse, the citation you added (properly -- I am not complaining that you added a citation!) actually contradicts the claims we make in the very next sentence (they say "Our study has also shown that there is no significant difference in blood pressure results between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.") Now, surely there are other studies that may find such differences, but it is a bit jarring to read a study we cited that says "no significant differences" and then read, one sentence later in Wikipedia the (uncited) claim "Vegetarians also show...lower blood pressure." To be frank, it looks like cherry-picking. Added to this is that the paragraph is written from an omniscient-observer point of view, so it sounds like Wikipedia is saying this, and not, say, Drs. Smith and Jones.
So yes, I think this paragraph still needs to be rewritten. Nandesuka 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I remember when one of the first articles about the China Study came out, it was in 1990 in the New York Times by noted nutrition columnist Jane Brody. It was there that I saw them refer to the study as "the Grand Prix of Epidemiology". I was actually able to find it in my files in less than two minutes. It's funny what we remember. Here's an excerpt:
Huge Study of Diet Indicts Fat And Meat'
In the 'Grand Prix' of epidemiology, scientists tracked eating habits of 6,500 Chinese
by JANE E. BRODY, Tuesday, May 8, 1990
Early findings from the most comprehensive large study ever undertaken of the relationship between diet and the risk of developing disease are challenging much of American dietary dogma. The study, being conducted in China, paints a bold portrait of a plant-based eating plan that is more likely to promote health than disease.... -MichaelBluejay 09:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
And this is the problem with uncited sources. See the difference? On the one hand we have a study which we say is "the" Grand Prix of dietary studies, which implies (a) it's the best, (b) it's the best objectively (c) it's a common belief that it's the best, and (d) that belief is still current, and on the other we have the actual facts, which is that it is a study that one reporter called the "Grand Prix" which is about 16 years old. Nandesuka 11:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
In any event, I've taken a crack at rewriting the paragraph. Feel free to add your citation to the new york times article. Nandesuka 12:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
added a few citations. i think if a cite is included for the china study we can be in a position to remove the npov label frymaster 16:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I think (a), (b), (c), and (d) are actually true. I don't think there has been another comparable study conducted in the intervening years, and I think this study is generally very well respected by professionals in the field, though if someone knows otherwise they're certainly free to cite that. There's also a big book out about this study, you know. Anyway, you wanted a source, I was just trying to provide one, since I happened to remember where the quote came from and it was readily accessible in my files. -MichaelBluejay 22:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
right, Nandesuka has done a rewrite, we've thrown in some citations for the rest and i for one, think the health section is a lot stronger.
i vote remove npov
frymaster 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

you guys are funny

just in case no one has noticed. this article contain three times the same definition sentence. you really hammered it home here trueblood 19:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Gestcrate caption

Lest the edit warring should continue, I wonder if those who quibble over how the caption ought to be formatted might explain their reasoning here, in order that a consensus should be sought; the dueling versions, incidentally, are here. I think the shorter version to be preferable, principally for two reasons: (a) it does not draw a conclusion apropos of whether the pigs can move (even as I am confident that Canaen's version is accurate, we oughtn't to draw conclusions where such drawing is unnecessary; a reader can surely ascertain the condition of the pigs without the caption's saying it, and our saying it verges on WP:OR); and, (b) it better focuses on the subject of the article (were the topic of the article animal abuse, Canaen's version might well suffice; here, though, animal abuse is discussed only tangentially, as a reason for one's veganism--the caption, then, ought to focus on the abuse-vegan nexus, and Canaen's version omits any reference to such nexus and doesn't attempt to conflate the picture and the topic of the article). The image exists to illustrate a reason for which some people lead a vegan lifestyle, not to offer commentary as to that reason (even if the commentary is, as in this case, altogether in accord with my sentiments); whether the pigs can turn around is largely irrelevant to veganism, inasmuch as most would nevertheless oppose factory farming even were the pigs permitted to turn around, and so the detail is unnecessary and unencyclopedic, especially/at least for this article. Joe 22:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ought to focus on the abuse-vegan nexus, then it isn't really a vegan issue, as a vegetarian issue. This article shouldn't be about vegan moralizing about issues already covered by a vegetarian article. Vegetarians already don't eat pigs. What it is that makes vegans go further in their dietary restrictions than vegetarians has nothing to do with pigs and factory farms. SchmuckyTheCat 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The major reasons for vegetarianism and veganism are the same and the articles necessarily cover similar territory. Kellen T
Of course they do. But this article should summary style and refer back on issues that overlap and then move on to the vegan specific issues. What does this picture add to an understanding of veganism that isn't already covered by its (or a similar picture) appearance on vegetarianism? Nothing. That kind of un-necessary repetition of emotional photos makes it seem like propaganda. SchmuckyTheCat 00:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That only makes any sense if you assume that people are reading Vegetarianism and then come here to read this article, which blatantly isn't how people use an encyclopedia. Also, and this is an important distinction, though vegetarians avoid eating meat, they are generally unmoved enough by factory farming of animals to avoid dairy. Kellen T 09:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
If there is an image, it should have a caption that describes things from a vegan angle, otherwise it's useless. So shouldn't we altogether try to find an image that is more characteristic to the vegan view? Of a dairy cow with a veal calf, with a caption that meat and milk aren't produced separately. Of chicken sexing and the culling of males from egg-laying strains because they're useless for eggs and inefficient for meat. Something like that. Femto 12:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
That would indeed be more appropriate. Kellen T 12:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Vegans oppose milk because its production is inextricably linked to meat production.
Vegans oppose milk because its production is inextricably linked to meat production.

How's this one from the WikiCommons. The caption is open for improvement, but this is the basic point that I would make. Femto 12:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That's all well and good except that a photo of a cow does not illustrate "Vegans generally oppose what they see as violence and cruelty involved in the meat, [9], dairy, non-vegan cosmetics, clothing, and other industries." That, and the caption is wrong. Kellen T 13:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Cruelty free options exist for dairy. Insisting that it is the cruelty mistakes the intentions of many vegans. SchmuckyTheCat 15:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Two points. (1) Vegans would insist that raising animals in captivity for the sole purpose of extracting something from them is inherently cruel. (2) "Cruelty-free" dairy is hardly representative of mainstream food production, and indeed many of the criticisms leveled at factory farming apply to "free range" (i'm assuming that's what you mean) animals as well. [36] Kellen T 17:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't try and speak for all vegans. "Vegans would insist" is a generality that isn't true. Not all vegans care about cruelty at all and might simply be doing it as a diet, temporarily eating vegan, or religious reasons. SchmuckyTheCat 15:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but we're talking about the ethical motivations for being vegan, which are predominantly based around cruetly. Religion, diet, etc are distinct issues. Kellen T 15:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please remember that the opinions of "Kellen, Wikipedia Editor" do not qualify as a verifiable, reliable, third party source. We should not be captioning pictures based on your opinions. (Or mine). Nandesuka 16:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention to do so. My comment was setting the context for my previous comment, since Schmucky seemed to take it in the context of "all vegans" rather than "people who are vegan for ethical reasons" which is what I was talking about and indeed what this whole thread is about. That one of the ethical reasons for being vegan are related to cruelty is documented throughout the article. Kellen T 16:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
You can't make the milk without making the cows, which is reason enough for vegans wanting to avoid the whole thing. Some see a happy milk cow with her young, some see a calf that sure isn't going to live in a retirement home. A seemingly unconnected image may bring across a better point about the perceived cruelty than one that does make a real point but which is not related. Femto 13:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The current picture of the pigs makes a real point which is obviously related. A caption for it that we can compromise on is all that's needed. Coelacan 01:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've put up a proposed compromise caption... "Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates. [37] Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism [citation needed]" I'm sure someone will revert it soon enough, but I thought I'd put it up so we can try it out and get new reactions. Coelacan 02:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

(moved from User_talk:Viriditas) Hi, Viriditas, I'm confused. What do you mean by "Link and caption are on the photo page. This page is about veganism"? I was trying to provide a compromise caption to the edit war (Talk:Veganism#Gestcrate_caption) as there are so many people insisting that a more detailed explanation of the picture be given. I took out the language about not being able to turn around because someone pointed out that was arguably original research as it pertains to the this specific picture. But anyway, I'm not sure what you mean about the "link and caption" bit and why it gets a revert? Thanks for your time. Coelacan 03:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The caption, "Female pigs in a factory farm. Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism" is in accordance with Wikipedia:Captions, and accurately describes the photo. Your content, "Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates" is based on the full quote on Image:Gestcrate01.jpg from factoryfarming.com: "Female pigs used for breeding (called 'breeding sows' by industry) are confined most of their lives in 'gestation crates' which are so small that they cannot even turn around. The pigs' basic needs are denied, and they experience severe physical and psychological disorders." This is not a factory farming article, and we do not need to comment about the photo, other than to mention the relationship to veganism. For the purposes of NPOV and relevance, I would prefer to limit the caption to only, "Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism", and leave it at that. Anyone interested, can click on the photo and read the quote from factoryfarming.com. —Viriditas | Talk 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand your point now. Coelacan 03:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I would still like to suggest a slight change: "Pregnant female pigs in a factory farm. Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism", because "pregnant" puts into context the reason we're mentioning at all that they're female. -- Coelacan | talk 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
That all sounds reasonable to me. Kellen T 08:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

The indenting is all screwy here, so this looks out of place:

"Female pigs in factory farms used for breeding, confined to gestation crates. [38] Factory farming is one of the most common ethical reasons given for veganism [citation needed]"

But I'd be fine with this. Mainly I want the crates labelled, and a link to factory farming in with it. We could use an article on Gestation Crates, for that matter. Canaen 06:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

"Sexual motives" and Sylvester Graham's non-vegan diet

I'm taking out the stuff on Sylvester Graham. My rationale: While Graham did caution against low-quality milk, "marketplace milk, much of which came from cows fed on leftover distillery mash (swill), with the anemic, liquor-inflected product made presentable by the addition of chalk, plaster of Paris, and molasses", [39] he did not advocate a vegan diet. "Butter should be used "very sparingly." Fresh milk and eggs were frowned upon but not proscribed. Cheese was permitted only if mild and unaged." [40] "Enjoy pure milk, fresh cheeses and eggs in moderation." [41] "Modern dieticians aren't as strongly opposed to meat as he was (although they'd certainly advise fish and poultry rather than red meat), and they'd go easy on the fat- and cholesterol-laden milk, cheese, and eggs he recommended." [42] Coelacan 16:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

three times definition

just thought i point this out again, the definition comes three times in different paragraphes and it gives the impression of brainwashing. i don't wanna mess with this since there so many devoted vegans here but i think the article would benefit from deleting two. trueblood 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some pruning is in order. The "origin of the name" bit could go into the "definition" section, and even then the content in the definition section would be appropriate for the first paragraph, with some trimming all around. The article would go from introductory first paragraph straight into the "ethics" section, and get to the point rather than mire in the details. I'm reminded of this article... Anyway, thanks trueblood, good suggestion. -- Coelacan | talk 22:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Environmental Motivation

The "Environmental Vegetarianism" article that is linked to in this section is well flushed-out, but the relationship to veganism is not made. I plan to re-write it to frame the linked article and tie it into veganism. I'm posting this first since this is a controversial topic and I haven't been part of the discussion up to this point. Any comments before I get underway? --TimTL 19:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this section needs work (as does that following section, "Feminism"). I say go ahead and expound upon what you can. Whatever controversy you might inadvertently introduce will be ironed out, err pounded out here on the talk page, you can be sure. -- Coelacan | talk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I re-wrote the section, and I hope it is more clear and factual now. My main concern is that the environmental vegetarianism article is parellel enough that it isn't worth re-writing it for veganism, but I want to make sure people who want more information will follow the link to that article. --TimTL 21:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's a start. I do think that style and clarity would be aided by retaining the {{main|Environmental vegetarianism}} tag right under the section header. -- Coelacan | talk 21:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
What about this change, which puts the e.v. link closer to the beginning? --TimTL 21:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, either way is fine. It's just that the {{main}} template makes it very clear to the reader that there is another whole article that discusses this section's topic. It's also good wikistyle. See this guide -- Coelacan | talk 22:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. Thank you for posting the relevant guide section; I looked for it briefly when I took off the -main- template originally and failed to find it. This general format should encourage interested readers to go to the e.v. page, which is a good one. --TimTL 00:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Header Parellelism

I changed the sub-headers under "Motivations" to all be nouns. For example, the sub-header for the last topic was "Feminist motivations" and I changed it to "Feminism", which is less redundant and conforms to the other sub-headers. --TimTL 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Difficulty Subsection of Criticism

The beginning of the Criticism section was particularly disorganized with no introductory statement. It launched right into some of the hard aspects of a vegan diet without context. I added a difficulty section and organized the concerns into areas of life that are affected by the vegan diet. I did some minor amount of text editting as well; I'm happy to discuss changes : ] --TimTL 01:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me PrettyMuchBryce 23:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The entirety of the Criticism section is pretty much redundant and pieced together in a strange hodge-podge of low level writing. In fact, it probably deserves its own page given the verbosity. I believe it must be rewritten correctly for conciseness and readability. A lot of the information is cherry-picked and somewhat biased if one cares to further review the sources as well. Nidara 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is vegetarian.org.uk "linkspam"?

Why has [43] been removed as linkspam? It seems appropriate enough. If I don't see a compelling argument to the contrary then I will add it back myself. -MichaelBluejay 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because User:Justbutler is "Dr Justine Butler: health campaigner of the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation and author of the White Lies report." [44]. It is inappropriate to use wikipedia as a platform to promote your own organization. Also note that the link was not just added in isolation; twice it was added with huge accompanying text which was akin to spamming. Furthermore, WP:ISNOT a web directory; we have culled *lots* of other links, and this one is not notable. Kellen T 08:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

100m

regarding legality of 100m records, see Ben Johnson --frymaster 03:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific, what regarding the 100m record in the Ben Johnson article? - Solar 08:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
michaelbluejay rv'd the reference to carl lewis being the first man to legally break 9.9 fore the 100m. his edit comment was 'previous efforts to break the 100m were illegal?'. i rv'd that edit becaus, yes, ben johnson's break of the record was illegal and he was disqualified. the talk entry is to provide the link to the johnson article. anyway, 'legally' has been changed to 'officially'... which is a better word by far -- frymaster 15:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

meaningless "ethical"/"animal rights" distinction (?)

the article says: "People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including a concern for animal rights, health benefits, religious, political, ethical, environmental, and spiritual concerns.". but i cannot understand how the 'animal rights' reason to be a vegan is different from the 'ethical' reason.

maybe there's some ethical reason to be a vegan that has nothing to do with animal rights that i never heard of.

i would prefer just "ethical" (not "animal rights") were left in place if this subissue gets sorted out. lakitu 05:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say that 'animal rights' should remain in the sentence as it is probably the key reason for becoming vegan. A survey on all-creatures.org found 41% stating 'concern for animals' as their key reason for becoming vegan. I have changed the sentence to:
People become vegans for a variety of reasons, including ethical concerns such as animal rights and the environment, as well as more personal reasons such as health benefits and spiritual or religious concerns.

Let me know what you think. - Solar 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

'Concern for animals' implies animal welfare rather than animal rights (you wouldn't call the civil rights movement of the 60s 'concern for blacks'). The new wording seems to cover both reasonably well. HenryFlower 10:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

foreskins?

Products of human origin that are obtained involuntarily -- such as infant human foreskin used for treating burns -- are not considered acceptable.

This is hardly a standard vegan position. I suggest removing it. Kellen T 18:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, some vegan people might not object, but it's certainly not vegan to take/use any animal (including human) product without consent. --Joehaer 21:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that consent is given by the child's human guardians. I contend that this is completely semantic and that any vegan burn victim who rejects a treatment with (now useless) foreskins on grounds of non-consent is treading deeply into pseudo religious fundamentalism. Do we have any documentation of vegans rejecting foreskins? Is the foreskin removal industry kept afloat by burn victims? Are there other "human animal products" which I should be avoiding; are there human breast milk dairies for which no consent has been given by those who are milked?! Kellen T 23:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Except that consent is given by the child's human guardians. The same is true of other animals. Their human guardians give consent, and they are slaughtered. I fail to understand why it is a problem for animals, but not for infants. Are animals imbued with "rights" that infant humans don't have?70.115.211.122 22:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Nunya
Please. You can recognize the difference between consent given by a member of the same species who has deep pschological and emotional bonds to their newborn child and consent given by a "legal guardian" to kill an animal that they had raised explicitly for that purpose. Additionally, these foreskins would otherwise be a waste product; any vegan who accepted treatment with them would not somehow be causing more circumcisions to happen that would not have already occured. This is beside the fact that cirumcision is stupid, which it is. Kellen T 22:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Awful citations

This whole articles is rife with citations that either 1) only claim to support standard vegetarianism or 2) claim health benefits to certain practices that vegans have but are not exclusive to veganism. For example, [45] is not an argument for veganism itself. It's an argument against drinking dairy milk. Worse still, this citation is used against an omnivorous diet, which doesn't itself contain many dairy products in most of the world or require consumption of dairy products anywhere.

This is analogous to implying that because Kosher Jews can't eat bacon, that non-Kosher Jews must eat bacon and concluding that a Kosher diet must be healthier because it lacks bacon. That's clearly flawed logic.

I'm honestly tempted to gut half the cites from this article and throw up {{fact}} templates. --Davidstrauss 11:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, the article is an argument against drinking dairy milk, yes, and vegans do not drink dairy milk. This would be a reason why vegans might "suggest that their diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet." (emphasis mine) This is a perfectly acceptable citation. Secondly, you are correct that many sources do not specifically include veganism when they are talking about vegetarianism. In many cases, however, the same background and reasoning applies. If you are seriously concerned that the citations here are out of order, why don't you go through them, make up a list of the ones you think are questionable and we can talk about them here? I suspect that you are correct that there are a few shoddy ones. Kellen T 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Here are some questionable citations and claims:

  • [46] This citation is used to support vegan diets as a distinctly healthful choice. However, the citation actually says that vegetarian diets are notably healthful. The article even states concerns particular to people on vegan diets. Citations supporting veganism need to uniquely support veganism unless the cited statement clarifies the scope of the claim. For example, statements should say things like "as with other vegetarian diets," "as with other low-fat diets," or "as with other diets containing abundant fruits and vegetables." This sort of reasoning is why the U.S. FDA distinguishes labeling a product "fat free" versus "a fat-free food." The former implies a distinction versus other comparable products; the latter implies that the product is fat free because it is by nature fat free. In the same way, we need to clarify where veganism actually distinguishes itself and where it merely inherents attributes by virtue of being a subset of many other diet options.
    From the article "A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, use of fortified foods or supplements can be helpful in meeting recommendations for individual nutrients. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence." (emphasis mine). The article is clearly including vegan diets. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
"[vegan] diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients" doesn't mean notably healthy. Steak meets almost all nutritional requirements, but it's not "healthy." Meeting nutritional requirements is generally jargon for "meets minimum nutrition standards without regard to excesses." --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle". Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [47], [48] These citations make claims against dairy products. First, the avoidance of dairy products is not unique to veganism, so it can't be implicitly claimed as a unique benefit of veganism. Second, the claims here seem to contract the claims in the previous citation, which included greater bone depletion in vegans.
    Both are used to support this sentence in the module "Vegans suggest that their diet is healthier than an omnivorous diet." As I have explained above, these are perfectly reasonable citations to support such a statement. It is irrelevant whether avoidance of diary products is unique to veganism. Were the statement "Veganism is healthier than an omnivorous diet," then we would need different citations. I do agree, though, that that particular statement would benefit from more citations than ones just about milk. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
You cannot claim something is better than something else without proving that the other thing is different on that aspect. An omnivorous diet does not say anything about dairy consumption other than not forbidding it. Hence, you cannot claim a vegan diet is healthier for banning something that most omnivores the world over don't even consume. It's like saying a diet that bans consumption of feces is healthier than a diet that allows it, regardless of the fact that pretty much no one eats feces, ban or not. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
So are you claiming that the vast majority of 'omnivores' do not eat dairy products? What about the vast majority of 'omnivores' in the 'west'? Got any citations? In any case, again this is "vegans claim that this diet is healthier" based upon avoidance of these items. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [49] Claims about rBGH affecting the actual milk product are routinely debunked. In fact, it's against FDA rules to claim the non-use of rBGH in dairy production affects the final product. An organic milk company in New England also failed in its efforts to force rBGH users to put warning labels on their milk for this reason. This source also fails WP:RS.
    This supports the sentence "They also argue that additional health benefits are gained by not consuming artificial substances such as growth hormones and antibiotics, which are often given to farmed animals." rBGH is clearly fed to many farmed animals and its usage is not labelled, as you say. Vegans will not consume these hormones. That the FDA does or does not require labelling tells us nothing; many people consider the FDA to be influenced by industry lobbyists. In any case, this supports a sentence in the motivations section, which speaks to the variety of reasons someone might become vegan. Concern over eating rBGH and other hormones is certainly a reason people give for becoming vegan. You, me, and the FDA may disagree with these people, but the fact is that it is still a motivation. This is therefore, again, a citation which is okay in my view as it is explicitly describing the mindset of some vegans rather than claiming a health benefit outright. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Vegans seem to consider anything against their arguments "results of industry lobbyists." Where's the standard? Furthermore, vegan avoidance of hormones is dubious. Do they eat things fortified with vitamin D? Case closed. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
You may find it dubious, but the fact remains that certain vegans make these claims and that they need to be represented in the article. You don't have to be convinced of their argument, but it exists and we are here to document their reasons. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [50] Clearly fails WP:RS.
    I disagree. A primary source for establishing the opinion of vegans. Therefore passes WP:RS. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's obviously not primary source material as it merely quotes other sources (unless you consider the selection of quotes and disorders itself the "primary source"). It fails WP:RS because the quotes are taken out of context, put on a personal site, and poorly cited. If Xenu.net fails WP:RS (which it did), this does too. They are also copyright violations because they fail fair use criteria; they're not used to discuss the topic. They're merely paragraphs copied without permission. Cite the original sources if you must. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh, (1) they're cited excerpts from longer articles, not the whole articles therefore not copyvios (2) any copyvio is notmilk.com's problem, not ours (3) point me to where xenu.net fails WP:RS as a primary critic of scientology rather than a source of scientology documents. Kellen T 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [51] Clearly fails WP:RS.
    I disagree. A primary source for establishing the opinion of vegans. Therefore passes WP:RS. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I must have missed the "Vegans suggest" part. This one is indeed okay.
  • [52] Passes WP:RS but is clearly sensationalistic: "More ominous is the fear of viral infection with

bovine leukemia virus or an AIDS-like virus as well as concern for childhood diabetes."

  • "Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians": True, but this isn't a benefit of veganism, as the section claims. This section should be about why someone would be vegan as a choice beyond regular vegetarianism. Throwing vegetarian claims in this section is like citing the health benefits of lettuce when talking about hamburgers.
    Eh, kind of. I'm ambivalent about this. An article on veganism necessarily must cover many of the things an article on vegetarianism does. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But then how does this section differ from one on common vegetarianism? It's also a real problem because plenty of people maintain that common vegetarianism is healthy, but veganism crosses the line. A better analogy would be using the merits of a V6 engine to argue for a V12. "Vegetarianism is good, so veganism must be better" just isn't supported here. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, vegans are usually included when people are discussiong vegetarianism in general. Veganism is rarely singled out for study. And again, we shouldn't expect people to go read the vegetarianism article, then come here and read the veganism article then compare and contrast. We necessarily cover some of the same material. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [53] [54] Using these in a veganism article is downright deceptive. First, the eastern conception of "vegetarian" is non-predominance of meat, not lack of it. Second, veganism is part of a large class of diets that fulfill the "China Study" criteria. Finally, the problems with increased meat consumption weren't based on a start of zero meat consumption, so it's not an argument for veganism.
    Huh? Again, this is a perfectly reasonable cite to establish perceptions of veganism as more healthy than a meat-based diet. It doesn't matter if other diets would qualify for the study's findings. As for the eastern conception of "vegetarian": the study was conducted by western scientists with their own definitions. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
But it doesn't establish veganism as healthier in itself, certainly no more than common vegetarianism. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. "That conclusion is being drawn by some scientists after reviewing results from the latest survey of diets, lifestyles and disease mortality among Chinese populations -- this one comparing current dietary habits in Taiwan and mainland China -- and measuring them against a time when fewer meat and dairy products were available in rural China." (emphasis mine). In any case, vegans have no obligation to establish that their diet is healthier than common vegetarianism. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [55] This has absolutely nothing to do with veganism. It's a question of meat production quality controls.
    This is a crappy link as it provides nothing interesting that the fellow said. But once again, an article on poor meat production quality controls would be valid here since it illustrates a motivation for someone to become vegan. Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It's no more an argument for going vegan than dirty city water is an argument for dehydrating yourself. --Davidstrauss 11:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you are convinved by arguments for going vegan. What matters is that people do go vegan for these reasons. Anyway, your analogy fails in that dehydrating yourself is detrimental to your health, but avoiding eating meat and dairy is not. Kellen T 15:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is just an analysis of two sections. I'll try to cover more soon. --Davidstrauss 03:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I think you're misreading that whole section. It seeks to establish motivations, related to perceived health benefits, for someone to become vegan. The linked articles do not need to specifically say "X means someone should be vegan." Kellen T 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
It depends on the sentence. Most of the citations are for assertions that vegans use to movivate themselves. Such statements must be well cited. There's a big difference between "Vegans believe that they improve their health by consuming milk produced by cows raised without hormones." and "Vegans believe that avoiding the hormones present in milk produced by hormone-treated cows improves their health." The latter sentence makes a factual assertion, that the hormones end up in the milk. That would have to be cited with a high standard of scientific reliability. The former sentence only needs a primary source document. --Davidstrauss 11:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe, someone should review the word "motive" in the dictionary. This should be quite a simple mute point. It would be nice to include more clinical study directly involving vegans. There are more and more coming out every year as the medical community sees this diet as a viable option. PubMed is a good place to start. However limited the study, the best frame of reference on the subject is generally under the vegetarian title. Suffice to say, vegans are vegetarians. Nidara 08:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Politically charged article?

ok, many people eat exactly like a vegan but don't care at all about "philosophies", "ideologies", "spiritual enlightments", and that stuff and they usually do it for health reasons. what are those people called. "nothingarians"?, "would-be-vegans-but-we-don't-want-them-to-be-because-we-like-politics-ians"? or what --fs 02:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, veganism appears to be more of an ideology than merely a "healthy" choice. --Davidstrauss 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
These people are also vegans. As the intro states, people are vegan for many different reasons (sometimes overlapping reasons) including perceived health benefits. Kellen T 09:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to me dietary vegans are discussed somewhat here. It is hard to say what percentage of vegans are so for what motivation. This is a study I would like to see someone do and back up claims on it on these pages. There is nothing in the article about the percentages because they don't exist. Nidara 08:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Honey

A bit of googling reveals that not all self-called vegans agree whether veganism excludes honey since it may be theoretically consumed without harming insects or plants or because more insects may be harmed in the production of sugar and that may even make its avoidance anti-vegan, and similar reasons. I think it deserves to be mentioned that it's not a clear area even though it's probably excluded in a "primary" definition. --fs 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Definatly agree. Honey eating and non honey eating vegans seem to fall in equal measure. I seem to recal that in one of the societies that honey eating was left as a personal choice. I've not heard the argument that avoiding honey is anti-vegan though. --Salix alba (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
The UK Vegan Society used to leave 'the honey question' as 'personal choice', but have since changed their stance. personally I have issues with their current 'honey' leaflet as it doesn't differentiaite between commercial and small scale honey production... quercus robur 20:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Citations Needed?

I have recently completed (or started, depending on your point of view) a major research paper regarding veganism. This talk page is constantly changing, and very long, but if anyone is looking for citations regarding virtually anything in regards to veganism, let me know. I have hundreds of primary sources sitting in a file of photocopies next to me, most of the involving nutrition, but also about issues as diverse as cancer rates, biblical passages and the societal pressures of eating meat. It has been difficult for me to tell which areas still need more citation, so if anyone is looking for a piece of academic work to support our cause, I probably have an example sitting next to me right now. Let me know. --Sometimes 07:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You can read some criticisms of the citations for nutrition/health claims here. So more thorough citations would be useful in quelling some objections. Kellen T 10:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Movement for Compassionate Living link

I would dispute the removal of the link to Movement for Compassionate Living (though am not prepared to go to war over it... :)

MCL were formed by kathleen jannaway who was secretary of the UK Vegan Society, and an important pioneer of the British vegan movement from the 40s onwards. She founded MCL as a 'breakaway' from the Vegan Society in 1984 when the VS decided to become more 'mainstream', ie, much of the money that was held by the VS with the intention of eventually creating some kind of vegan based land project got ploughed into making the Vegan magazine more glossy and 'accessable' and various other marketing projects. Jannaway felt that this was not the direction she wanted the society to move in and consequently set up MCL, which promoted the 'ecological veganism' that the 'old' vegan society held up as an ideal. The publications of the MCL such as 'Abundant Living in the Coming Age of the Tree', which argues for the phasing out of animal farming in favour of tree crops that can meet all human needs are visionary and important though currently under-recognised contributions to the wider debates around not only veganism but ecological sustainablity.

In terms of their ideas and what they add to the development of vegan thought and philosophy MCL have a long pedigree and are at least as important as some of the other oranisations linked to such as Vegan Outreach etc.

I strongly feel the link is appropriate in this article and should be re-instated, but will abide by consensus on the matter. quercus robur 22:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I am an American, so this influences my familiarity with non-US organizations. I'm currently in the UK and I don't think I've seen any of thier pamphlets, but you have provided good justification for keeping the link. Try to keep in mind that we should maintain a minimalist set of links (WP is not a web directory). One thing to consider is the visibility of the organizations to which we link; e.g. I see vegan outreach pamphlets everywhere, even in the UK. Kellen T 23:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Kellen, MCL are not that visible, they are perhaps a little 'quietist' (must be that Quaker thang...) but none the less impotrtant for all that, they do usually have an understated presence (stalls, etc) at most UK vegan events. Personaly I feel that in these brash, marketing oriented times they are the quintisential definition of speaking truth to power... quercus robur 00:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/g/Talk%7EVeganism_Archive_5_e8ef.html"